R v Licensing Court of Brisbane; Ex parte Daniell

The case of *R v Licensing Court of Brisbane; Ex parte Daniell* involved an application for writs of prohibition and certiorari removed to the High Court of Australia from the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant, Sarah Ann Daniell, sought to prevent the Licensing Court of Brisbane from enforcing a determination that her hotel licence should cease to be in force. This determination was a consequence of a local option poll conducted in Queensland on 5 May 1917, which had resolved to reduce the number of liquor licences in the area. The central dispute concerned the validity of this local option poll, which was held on the same day as a Commonwealth Senate election.

The High Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether section 14 of the *Commonwealth Electoral (War-time) Act 1917* was a valid exercise of the Commonwealth Parliament's legislative power. Secondly, if section 14 was valid, whether a local option poll conducted under Queensland law on the same day as a Commonwealth election was illegal and of no effect, thereby invalidating any subsequent decisions or orders made by the Licensing Court based on that poll.

A majority of the High Court (Knox C.J., Isaacs, Gavan Duffy, Powers, Rich, and Starke JJ.) held that section 14 of the *Commonwealth Electoral (War-time) Act 1917* was a lawful exercise of the Commonwealth Parliament's powers, including those derived from sections 10, 51(XXXVI), and 51(XXXIX) of the Constitution. This section prohibited the taking of any State referendum or vote on the day of a Commonwealth Senate or House of Representatives election. The Court reasoned that this prohibition created an inconsistency with the Queensland *Liquor Act 1912*, which authorised the local option poll to be held on the day of the Senate election. Pursuant to section 109 of the Constitution, the State law was invalid to the extent of this inconsistency. Consequently, the local option poll conducted on 5 May 1917 was deemed illegal and of no effect. As the Licensing Court's determination was based on this invalid poll, it was also invalid. Higgins J. agreed that section 14 was within the Commonwealth Parliament's power but expressed doubt as to whether the prohibition rendered the poll void, suggesting it might only impose penalties on those conducting it.

The Court made absolute the rule for prohibition, ordering that a writ of prohibition issue to restrain the Licensing Court from proceeding further in respect of the local option vote and its consequences.