HODGE V. NEEDLE

HL 2, Green, Gort. Print, Melb. oar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.

oo BED Be

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT.

Judgment delivered at... weEBOBREE———-—~

TATHAN Code

Various questions have been argued upon this application. In the forefront of those questions stands the matter of the interpretation of sec, 39 of the Native Administration Act 1905-36. The section is in the following termss- "It shall not be lawful for any person, other than a superintendent or protector, or a person acting under the direction of a superintendent, or under a written permit of a@ prowetor, without lawful excuse to enter or remain or be wi or upon any place where natives are camped or where any natives may be congregated or in the course of travelling in parsuanee of any native custom." The latter words, releting to congregation and travelling, were added by an amendment made in the year 1936. The rest of the section is in the following termst- 'Any person, save as aforesaid, who, without lawful proof whereof shall lie upon hin, is found in

czoures the Bread the of-any such camp shall'be guilty of an

offence against this aety but no person shall be prosecuted

for an offence under this section except by the direction

of a protector." The applicant, Hugh Peter Vere Hodge, is not a superintendent or protector under the set, nor was he a person acting under the direction of a superintendent cor under a written permit of a protector, It was charged that, not being such a person, he did, without lawful excuse, enter upon a place where natives were congregated contrary to sec. 39 of the set, It was proved that t toa in the bush mee oF ae were ee Guneregate : Redes. want, J ° place/was mear a native camp bu 3 in or within five chains of the camp. Accordingly, he was not guilty of any offence under

the latter part of the seetion, which provides that it shall be an offence without lavful excuse for any person without a permit or praper authority to be found in or within 5 chains of a camp. 'The prosecution, therefore, was based entirely upon the earlier words of the section, which prohibit unauthorised persons from entering within or upon certain places. Various questions have been raised, with some of which it is unnecessary to deal in the view which we