R v Turner; Ex parte Marine Board of Hobart

The case involved an application for prohibition and a demurrer concerning the jurisdiction of a Commonwealth Court of Marine Inquiry to investigate a collision between two steamships in the River Derwent, Hobart. The collision occurred between vessels solely engaged in intra-state trade within the Port of Hobart, and at a location slightly outside the usual course of ships involved in foreign or inter-state commerce, though the colliding vessels had recently traversed such a course. The State of Tasmania and the Marine Board of Hobart sought to prevent the Commonwealth Court from conducting the inquiry, arguing it lacked jurisdiction.

The central legal issue was whether the Commonwealth Parliament, through the Navigation Act 1912-1925, possessed the constitutional power to authorise a Court of Marine Inquiry to investigate a casualty involving vessels not engaged in foreign or inter-state trade or commerce, even if the incident occurred in waters that were also used by such vessels. This question turned on the interpretation of the Commonwealth's legislative powers under section 51(i) and section 98 of the Constitution, relating to trade and commerce and navigation and shipping, and the extent to which these powers could be exercised in relation to intra-state shipping. A secondary issue concerned the applicability of section 478 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894.

A majority of the High Court (Knox C.J., Gavan Duffy, Rich, and Starke JJ.) held that the Commonwealth Court of Marine Inquiry did not have jurisdiction. Their reasoning was twofold: firstly, the facts of the collision did not demonstrate any connection to foreign or inter-state trade or commerce, and therefore the Commonwealth Parliament's power under section 51(i) and section 98 of the Constitution, which is limited to regulating navigation and shipping in relation to such trade, was not engaged. They applied the principle established in *Newcastle and Hunter River Steamship Co. v. Attorney-General for the Commonwealth* that Commonwealth legislation on shipping must be ancillary or relevant to foreign or inter-state trade. Secondly, they found that section 478 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 did not empower the Commonwealth Parliament to alter the fundamental division of powers between the Commonwealth and the States, and therefore could not grant jurisdiction in this instance. Powers J. concurred on the basis that the vessels were exempt from the Navigation Act.

The Court ordered that the writ of prohibition should issue, preventing the Commonwealth Court of Marine Inquiry from proceeding with the investigation into the collision.