Re Rogers, Ex parte Gersten

The case of *Re Rogers, Ex parte Gersten* concerned an application by Mr. Gersten for a writ of prohibition directed to the respondent, Mr. Rogers, who was acting as a commissioner appointed under the *Royal Commissions Act 1902* (Cth). Mr. Gersten sought to prohibit Mr. Rogers from continuing an inquiry into certain matters, including allegations of fraud and corruption in relation to the administration of the affairs of the Australian Workers' Union.

The central legal issue before the High Court of Australia was whether the terms of reference for the Royal Commission were valid and lawful, specifically whether they conferred upon the Commissioner the power to investigate and report on matters that were not within the scope of the Commission's established purpose. Mr. Gersten contended that the Commission's terms of reference were too broad and purported to grant powers that were beyond the constitutional authority of the Commonwealth to delegate.

Dawson J, in his judgment, considered the principles governing the scope of powers conferred upon Royal Commissions. His Honour affirmed that the validity of a Royal Commission's terms of reference is to be assessed by reference to the subject matter of the inquiry and whether it falls within the legislative power of the Commonwealth. The Court found that the terms of reference, as they stood, were not sufficiently precise and appeared to extend beyond the legitimate ambit of Commonwealth power, particularly in relation to matters that were primarily within the jurisdiction of the States.

Consequently, Dawson J made absolute the order nisi for a writ of prohibition, restraining the Commissioner from continuing the inquiry in so far as it extended to matters outside the lawful scope of the Commission's authority.