Troy v Wrigglesworth - [1919] HCA 31

WRIGGLESWORTH

RESPONDENT. INFORMANT,

ON APPEAL FROM A COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS High Court-Appellate jurisdiction-State Court of summary jurisdiction invested

with Federal jurisdiction-Cour of Petty Sessions of Victoria-Court not con- sisting of Police Magistrate-Matter involving interpretation of Constitution Information-Offence against State police law-Immunity of Commonwealth MELBOURNE, officer-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), secs. 71, 73, 76, 77-Judiciary Act June 4, 5, 18. 1903-1915 (No. 6 of 1903-No. 4 of 1915), secs. 30, 38, 38A, 39-Justices Act 1915 (Vict.) (No. 2675), sec. 63-Motor Car Act 1915 (Vict.) (No. 2702), sec. 10.

Held, by Barton, Isaacs, Higgins and Rich JJ. (Gavan Duffy J. dissenting), that where a State Court of summary jurisdiction not consisting of one of the magistrates specified in sec. 39 (2) (d) of the Judiciary Act 1903-1915 entertains

matter which is one of Federal jurisdiction, it is exercising, though unlawfully, Federal jurisdiction, even although it professes to be exercising State jurisdic- tion, and an appeal will lie from its decision to the High Court under that

Roberts v. Ahern, 1 C.L.R., 406; Baxter v. Commissioners of Taxation (N.S.W.), 4 C.L.R., 1087, and Miller v. Haweis, 5 C.L.R., 89, considered and

On a prosecution in a Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria, constituted of two Justices of the Peace, for driving a motor-car in a manner dangerous to the public, contrary to the provisions of the Motor Car Act 1915 (Vict.), the objection was taken that, as the defendant when driving the motor-car was engaged in the performance of his duties as an officer of the Defence Depart- ment, the matter was one of Federal jurisdiction, and therefore should be

26 CLR 306

dealt with by a Police Magistrate. The objection having been overruled and the defendant having been convicted, on appeal by him to the High Court,

Held, by Barton, Isaacs, Higgins and Rich JJ., that the matter raised by the objection involved the interpretation of the Constitution, and was therefore a matter of Federal jurisdiction which should, under sec. 39 (2) (d) of the Judiciary Act 1903-1915, have been heard and determined by a Police Magistrate, and that the case should be remitted to the Court of Petty Sessions to be so heard

APPEAL from a Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria.

At the Court of Petty Sessions at Melbourne an information came on for hearing whereby Horace Wrigglesworth charged that Edmund Troy did, on 8th August 1918, drive a motor-car on St. Kilda Road in a manner dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circum- stances of the case, contrary to the provisions of sec. 10 of the Motor Car Act 1915. The Court of Petty Sessions was constituted by two Justices of the Peace. Before evidence was heard it was stated on behalf of the defendant that he was an employee of the Commonwealth, and that as his liability would on that ground be contested the matter was one of Federal jurisdiction, and therefore that the Court should consist…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Troy v Wrigglesworth

Details

AGLC: Troy v Wrigglesworth [1919] HCA 31
Case: [1919] HCA 31
Decision Date: 18 June 1919

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria. The appellant, Edmund Troy, was prosecuted for driving a motor-car in a manner dangerous to the public under the Victorian Motor Car Act 1915. The defence argued that as Troy was an employee of the Commonwealth engaged in official duties at the time of the alleged offence, the matter fell within Federal jurisdiction and therefore should have been heard by a Police Magistrate, not the two Justices of the Peace constituting the Court of Petty Sessions. The justices overruled this objection and convicted Troy.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the Court of Petty Sessions, as constituted, had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter, and consequently, whether an appeal lay to the High Court. This question hinged on whether the objection raised by the defence involved the interpretation of the Constitution, thereby vesting the matter with Federal jurisdiction, and if so, whether the Court of Petty Sessions had lawfully exercised that jurisdiction given the composition of the bench.

A majority of the High Court (Barton, Isaacs, Higgins, and Rich JJ.) held that the objection raised by the defence did indeed involve the interpretation of the Constitution, thus constituting a matter of Federal jurisdiction. They reasoned that while the Judiciary Act 1903-1915 invested State Courts of summary jurisdiction with Federal jurisdiction, section 39(2)(d) imposed a condition that such jurisdiction could only be exercised by a Police Magistrate. The Court found that by proceeding to hear the case without a Police Magistrate, the Court of Petty Sessions had unlawfully exercised Federal jurisdiction, rather than having no jurisdiction at all. This distinction was crucial, as it meant an appeal lay to the High Court under section 73 of the Constitution. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and remitted the case to the Court of Petty Sessions to be heard and determined by a Police Magistrate as required by the Judiciary Act. Gavan Duffy J. dissented, finding that the Court of Petty Sessions had not been exercising Federal jurisdiction, but rather usurping it, and therefore no appeal lay to the High Court.

Orders