PERRY V. BASLEY 13/1941

oun

Yo. Is { 44

HL J. Green, Gort, Print, Mab,

ae eee

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.

Tea

Mg

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT.

FERRY _ Vv. = BASLEY. r ~ yopeamwe. ° RICH AcCods This is an appeal by way of Order Nist to Review granted by ir Justice Starke on Sth May 1941 from the decision of the Court of Petty Seesions,Perth, whereby the appellant was convieted and fined on a charge that she on the 2nd April 1941 et West Perth did without lawful excuse have in her possession a Girqular headed "warning" hut undated advocating unlew- ful dnotrines contrary to Regulation; 7 (a) National segurity(subversive ; Associgtions) Regulations Nou, 109 aad 152 of 1940 National Seoubity Act 1939 see, 10 (&) and sontenaed to pay a fine of 250 with £4/7/- coats. The ruke aisi was granted on two groutds t+ (1) Taat the doouent or warning marked *a" referred to in the tronseript of progecdings batore the Stiptadkery Magistrate did not advocate snyunlawful avateine oF any dogtring or principle whatevever 'prejudicial to the Comuonwéalth or the efficient pro- seoution of the war ¢ontrary to National Seourity Regulations 1940 Wo,209 as smended by 1940 Mos 162, {2) That there was no evidense or no suffidient evidence that the Appellant hed in her possession the anid dogument marked "A". 'The evidenge in the gase before the Magtetraté was thatthe Police . nade a searoh at the appellant's premiags and there found a moter car. In answer to o question whether the moter cay was her property,she replied "It ie» X will get you the keys. Aoparentiy, the keys gould not be found, the @ar was forobbly openéd. The car was searched in the presence of the accus- ed and her husband and 0 book and two typewritten documents wore found in it. The Police Constable showed the do¢unents te the appellant and asked her 'are these your property?" She replied "Yes", One of the documents was Exhibit A. Tha Polige Uonstable also asked the husband in her presenée if Exhibit 4 was his, He replied "No and disé@laimed any kmowledge of it. 'The appellant also gald that she hed typed the doguments herself. No evidence was given by or ou behalf of the appellant. On this evidense the Magistrate convicted the appellant. The appeal before this Court. was argued on the two grounds stated im the order nisi. On behalf of the appellent My Hill put up a valiant fight in a hopeless cause. In support of the first ground he ¢ontended there was no advecasy and no doetrine or principle advoeated within the meaning of the vegulation. a perugal of Exhibit A shows that it was intended to be communi~