HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Viscount Simonds, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Tucker, Lord Cohen, Lord Somervell of Harrow
THE QUEEN v. RICHARDS; Ex parte FITZPATRICK AND BROWNE
(1955) 92 CLR 171
14 July 1955
Privy Council
Privy Council—Appeal from High Court—Special leave—Grounds on &hich granted—Great public importance—Basis for challenge to judgment under appeal.
Decision
The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by: -
VISCOUNT SIMONDS. In order that their Lordships may feel justified in advising Her Majesty to grant leave to appeal, two conditions at least must be satisfied. The first is that the matter under review should be one of great public importance. That condition is satisfied in this case. But the second condition is this: it must be shown that there is some ground for challenging the correctness of the judgment against which it is sought to appeal. In this case, having carefully considered the judgment of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, and having listened to the arguments that have been adduced against its correctness, their Lordships are satisfied that that judgment is unimpeachable, and that leave to appeal should not be granted. Their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty accordingly. (at p172)
Orders
Petition dismissed.
Details
- AGLC
- The Queen v Richards; Ex parte [1955] HCA 37
- Case
- [1955] HCA 37
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Queen, on the relation of the Attorney-General, brought proceedings against Richards, seeking a declaration that the respondent was disqualified from being a member of the House of Commons. The case was heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent, having been convicted of certain offences and sentenced to imprisonment, was disqualified from sitting and voting in the House of Commons by virtue of the provisions of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957. Specifically, the court had to determine the scope and effect of the disqualification provisions relating to persons convicted of treason or felony and sentenced to imprisonment.
The Privy Council reasoned that the disqualification provisions were intended to apply to all persons convicted of treason or felony and sentenced to imprisonment, regardless of whether the sentence was suspended or not. The court emphasised that the legislative intent was to prevent individuals with such convictions from participating in Parliament. The principle applied was that statutory provisions concerning disqualification from Parliament should be interpreted broadly to uphold the integrity of the legislative body.
The court declared that the respondent was disqualified from being a member of the House of Commons.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent, having been convicted of certain offences and sentenced to imprisonment, was disqualified from sitting and voting in the House of Commons by virtue of the provisions of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957. Specifically, the court had to determine the scope and effect of the disqualification provisions relating to persons convicted of treason or felony and sentenced to imprisonment.
The Privy Council reasoned that the disqualification provisions were intended to apply to all persons convicted of treason or felony and sentenced to imprisonment, regardless of whether the sentence was suspended or not. The court emphasised that the legislative intent was to prevent individuals with such convictions from participating in Parliament. The principle applied was that statutory provisions concerning disqualification from Parliament should be interpreted broadly to uphold the integrity of the legislative body.
The court declared that the respondent was disqualified from being a member of the House of Commons.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.