Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935052

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-238139

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 2

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XI Seiten, Seiten 570-1100

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part IV. The federations and the union // Chapter II. The commonwealth of Australia

Collection:: Economics Books

cmap. 1] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 889 in that case, in accordance with the views of certain lawyers in connexion with the Municipal Corporations Commission,! that an inquiry instituted by the Crown to ascertain if an offence has been committed, and by whom, and whether any penalty or forfeiture has been incurred, is a matter trespassing on the province of the judiciary and within the mischief of the statutes 42 Edw. III. ¢. 3 and the Act for the abolition of the Star Chamber. The question of inquiries has also been considered by the Supreme Court of New South Wales in the case of Clough v. Leahy? In that case a royal commission had been issued to inquire into the formation, working, and constitution of a certain industrial union, to consider if it were an invasion of two Acts of Parliament, whether it hampered the Indus- trial Arbitration Court from doing justice in disputes arising in the pastoral industry, and whether any alteration of the law was necessary in this connexion. On the prosecution of a witness for refusing to give evidence, it was argued before the Court that the object of the commission being solely bo inquire into matters already adjudicated upon by the Arbitration Court, and over which that Court had complete power, the royal commission as a usurpation of the juris- diction of a Court lawfully constituted to deal with the same matter was illegal. This view was accepted by the Supreme Court, but on appeal it was held by the High Court of Australia that there was no warrant for saying that any inquiry of itself was unlawful, even though it related to guilt or innocence or to private right and was held in public. It was clearly the opinion of the Court that the mere inquiry into guilt or innocence, even when backed by a power to compel evidence, was not a judicial proceeding or a usurpation of judicial power. In the case of Huddart Parker & Co. Proprietary Limited v. Moorehead ® it was held unanimously by the whole Court that t Harrison Moore, Commonwealth of Australia,® p. 310, n. 1; Parl. Pap., 852, xxvi. 331 seq. ; Law Review, xv. 269. 2 16 Car. I c. 10. } (1904) 2 C. L. R. 139, overruling (1904) 4 8. BR. (N. 8. W.) 401. tg. L. R. 330, at pp. 354 seq., per Griffith C.J.; at pp. 366 seq.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation