Lamshed v Lake [1958] HCA 14

High Court of Australia Dixon C.J. McTiernan, Williams, Webb, Kitto and Taylor JJ. Lamshed v Lake [1958] HCA 14

ORDER Question in the special case stated by the parties under O. 35 r. 1 answered No. The complainant to pay the costs of the special case.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

1958, April 17 Dixon C.J.

This case comes before the Court in an unusual way. The complainant Lamshed, a senior constable in the police force of South Australia, stationed at Gepps Cross, laid a complaint against the defendant Lake of Alice Springs in the Northern Territory, by occupation a carrier. The complaint was for an offence against s. 14 of the Road and Railway Transport Act 1930-1939 S.A.. The charge was that on 31st July 1956, not being the holder of a licence under that Act or employed by the holder of such a licence, the defendant did in relation to a controlled route drive a vehicle on which goods were carried for hire.

The hearing of the complaint was begun before a special magistrate in and for South Australia at Gepps Cross Court. For the defendant a defence was raised that he was not subject to the prohibition expressed in s. 14 of the State Act because he was in the course of a journey from Adelaide to Alice Springs carrying goods between those two places and not otherwise and by s. 10 of the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910-1955 it is provided that trade commerce and intercourse between the Territory and the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation shall be absolutely free.

The Attorney-General of South Australia thereupon applied to this Court under s. 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1955 on the footing that this defence brought with it a question under the Constitution and he obtained an order for removal of the cause into this Court an order to which, it is needless to say, the Attorney-General of a State is entitled as of right when the interpretation of the Constitution is involved.