R v O'Donoghue - [1917] HCA 8

y>r*Pub}ic c . .

Prosecutions.

ag.

23 C.L.R.]

OF AUSTRALIA.

Isaacs J. I agree.

H. C. OF A.

1917.

Rich J. I agree.

Cl a r k e

U n io n

B a n k

Appeal allowed.

Order appealed from set aside.

Defendants to have leave to defend on under- t r a lia

L t d .

talcing to file their defence ivithin seven days. Costs of summons to he costs in the cause. Costs of appeal to High Court to he defe'nd- ants' costs in the cause.

Solicitors for the appellants, Corr

Corr.

Solicitors for the respondent, McLaughlin & Eaves.

B. L.

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

THE KING

AGAINST

O’DONOGHUE.

Criminal Law—Larceny—Commonwealth Officer^" By virtue of his employment ” H. C. o f A.

—Offence against laws of Commonwealth—Trial on indictment before State

1917.

Court—Jurisdiction to reserve question of law for High Court—Crimes Act

1914-1915 {No. 12 of 1914— No. 6 of 1915), sec. 71—Judiciary Act 1903-1915 Me l b o iir n e ,

(No. 6 of 1903—Ao. 4 of 1915), sec. T2 (1).

March 28.

Qucere, whether on a trial on indictment for an offence against the laws

ls.iacs,

of the Commonwealth before a Court of a State the Court has jurisdiction .-ind

under sec. 72 (1) of the Judiciary ,4c< 1903-1915 to reserve a question of law

for the consideration of a Full Court of the High Court.

Semble, that property does not come into the possession of an officer of the Commonwealth “ by virtue of his employment,” within the meaning of sec. 71 of the Crimes Act 1914-1915, unless he had authority as such officer to receive it.

HIGH COURT

[1917.

H. C. OF A. Case reserved .

On the trial at Melbourne before dBeckett J. of David Flynn

T h e K in g O’Donoghue, that learned Judge reserved a case for the opinion of

O’D oiToghue

High Court which was as follows :—

----- The accused was tried before me on 27th and 28th February on an information containing eight counts, charging that he, being a Commonwealth officer, to wit, a clerk employed in connection with the Naval Forces of the Commonwealth of Australia, did contrary to the Crimes Act 1914-1915 fraudulently convert to his own use certain sums of money specified in the different counts.

The section creating the offence charged, sec. 71 of the Crimes Act 1914 (No. 12 of 1914), is as follows :—“ Any person who, being a Commonwealth officer, steals, or fraudulently misappropriates or converts to his own use, any property belonging to the Common wealth or any public authority under the Commonwealth or any property which has come into his possession by virtue of his employment, shall be guilty of an indictable offence. Penalty: Imprisonment for seven years.”

As to some of the sums mentioned in the information the counts charged that they were property belonging to the Commonwealth. As to others it was charged that they had come…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v O'Donoghue

Details

AGLC: R v O'Donoghue [1917] HCA 8
Case: [1917] HCA 8
Decision Date: 28 March 1917

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *R v O'Donoghue* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia regarding a conviction for larceny. The appellant, O'Donoghue, was charged with larceny as a Commonwealth officer, an offence against the laws of the Commonwealth, and was tried on indictment before a State court.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a State court had the jurisdiction to try an indictment for an offence against the laws of the Commonwealth, specifically the offence of larceny as a Commonwealth officer. This involved an examination of the constitutional framework governing the relationship between State and Commonwealth judicial power.

The High Court held that State courts do possess the constitutional authority to hear and determine indictments for offences against the laws of the Commonwealth. This power is derived from the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), which confers jurisdiction upon State courts to the extent that their own laws and constitution permit. The Court reasoned that the trial of O'Donoghue in the State court was therefore a valid exercise of judicial power.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and the jurisdiction of the State court to try the Commonwealth offence.

Orders