Ross v Sickerdick

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a conviction in a Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria. The appellant, Robert Samuel Ross, was charged with failing to comply with an order made under regulation 28A of the War Precautions Regulations 1915. The order required him, as the editor of "The Socialist" newspaper, to submit any matter intended for publication relating to the war to a designated person before publication. Ross failed to submit an article titled "R. S. Ross in Court," which reported on previous proceedings against him.

The legal issues before the High Court were twofold. Firstly, whether the scope of regulation 28A was limited to matters ejusdem generis with specific subjects mentioned in other regulations, or if it extended to any matter relating to the war. Secondly, whether a genuine belief by the defendant that the published matter did not fall within the regulation constituted a defence to a charge of non-compliance, thereby requiring proof of mens rea.

The High Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the wording of regulation 28A, particularly the insertion of the phrase "which relates or refers to the present war or to any subject connected therewith or arising therefrom," clearly indicated that the regulation was not limited to matters ejusdem generis with those in regulations 19 or 28. Furthermore, the Court determined that the regulation imposed an absolute prohibition on publication without prior submission, meaning that a defendant's belief that the matter did not fall within the regulation, or that their actions were lawful, was not a defence. The intention of the legislature was to prohibit the act itself, irrespective of the defendant's subjective state of mind or knowledge of the law.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.