Thurley v Hayes

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania concerning a charge under section 137(IV) of the *Police Act 1905* (Tas.). The complainant, Hayes, had charged the defendant, Thurley, with using insulting words in a public place calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. Specifically, Thurley allegedly said to a returned soldier, "You are sponging on the Government and you waste public money and I will report you." Justices of the Peace convicted Thurley, but the Supreme Court, per Ewing J., made absolute an order nisi for prohibition, finding the words not sufficiently insulting to lead to a breach of the peace.

The legal issues before the High Court were twofold: first, the meaning of the phrase "calculated to provoke a breach of the peace" within the context of the *Police Act 1905*; and second, whether the specific words used by Thurley could properly be found to be insulting and calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, considering the circumstances. The Court was required to determine if the Supreme Court had erred in reversing the decision of the magistrates.

The High Court held that "calculated to provoke a breach of the peace" should be interpreted as meaning "likely to have that effect." The Court reasoned that the term "insulting" is broad and encompasses words that are offensively dishonouring, contemptuous, or disrespectful, as supported by dictionary definitions. The Court further stated that whether words are "calculated to provoke a breach of the peace" is a question of fact dependent on the circumstances, and if justices could reasonably conclude that the words were likely to cause a disturbance to public order, the appellate court should not interfere. The High Court found that the words used by Thurley could properly be considered insulting and likely to provoke a breach of the peace, and that the Supreme Court had erred in its assessment.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, discharged the order nisi for prohibition, and affirmed the conviction of Thurley. Thurley was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.