R v Snow - [1917] HCA 25

256 HIGH COURT

fl917.

H . C. OF A.

plaintiff, it cannot be said the matter was not bond fide open to argu

1017..-^ment. Tire Commonwealtli, as the employer, is free to frame its

T a y l o r

regulations in its own way, and as in this case the provision might

T he

have been framed so as to exclude all possible doubt, and as this is a

(.’OMMON-

^V E A L T H .ruling which enures for the benefit of the Commonwealth in cases

other than the present, I think justice will be met by leaving both

Isaacs J.

sides to bear their own costs.

Judfpnent for the defendants.

FoilSolicitors for the plaintiff,

Louqhretj & Douglas.

R V Weaver

Solicitor for the defendants, Gordon H. Castle, Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth.

0931145

CLR fcl

B. L.

[HIGH COURT OF A U STRALIA .]

HJS MAJESTY THE KING . . .

A p p e l l a n t ;

.4ND

SNOW

R e s p o n d e n t .

ON A l’REAL FROM T H E SU PR E M E COURT OF

SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

C. OF A.

1917.

—'Trading %vUh the Enemy— Meaning at common law— Commercial intercourse—(Join-

munications upon busities.s matters— Trading with the Enemy Acts 1914 (rVo..

9 and No. 17 of 1914), secs. 2, 3— Imperial Proclamations of ~>th August 1914

M a y

28-31.

and t)th September, 1914.

M f.l u o u r n e ,

Ju n e

The term trad ing w ith the enem y " a t common law and as used in the

llarton A.C.J.,

Trading with the Enemy Acts 1914 includes all commercial intercourse with the

leaac-ij,

enemj'.

Gavan Unify, Powers and Rich J.T.

The Panariellos, 84 L .J. P., 140; 85 L .J. P., 112, considered and followed.

23(:.lv.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

257

Held, therefore, th a t a person who took p a rt in correspondenee which

H . C. OF A.

was intended to conserve existing or prom ote fu ture business relations w ith a 1917.

])crson carrying on business in (lerm any m ight i)roperly be convicted of the

offence of trading with the enemy under sec. 3 of the Trriditig with the Enemy

T hk K in g

Acts 1914.

S n o w .

Deei.sion of the Suprem e Court of South Australia reversed.

A p p e a l from the Supreme Court of South Australia.

On the trial at the Criminal Sittings of the Supreme Court of South Australia, before Murray C.J., of Francis Hugh Snow on an information charging him with trading with the enemy, the learned (^hief Justice stated the following case under sec. 72 of the Judiciarii Act 1903-1915 for the consideration of the Full Court of the Supreme Court

At the Criminal Sittings of this Court beginning on 2nd November 1915 the defendant was charged and tried before me upon an…

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 Snow

Details

AGLC: R v Snow [1917] HCA 25
Case: [1917] HCA 25
Decision Date: 7 June 1917

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *R v Snow*, the High Court of Australia considered the meaning of "trading with the enemy" under the *Trading with the Enemy Acts 1914* (Cth) and relevant Imperial Proclamations. The case concerned the appellant, Snow, who was charged with trading with the enemy.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether communications between the appellant and individuals in enemy territory, for the purpose of conducting business, constituted "trading with the enemy" at common law and under the relevant legislation. This required the Court to interpret the scope of commercial intercourse prohibited by the Acts and Proclamations during wartime.

The Court reasoned that "trading with the enemy" at common law encompassed any commercial intercourse with an enemy, regardless of whether it resulted in a profit or loss. The intention to carry on business was sufficient. The Court held that the appellant's actions, which involved communicating with individuals in enemy territory to arrange business matters, fell within this definition. The *Trading with the Enemy Acts 1914* and the Proclamations were intended to give effect to this broad common law prohibition.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the appellant for trading with the enemy.

Orders