Pankhurst v Kiernan [1917] HCA 63

120 HIGH COURT

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.

r PANKHURST . f i P d ' . APPEI DEFENDANT, AND KIERNAN : é : a Z 4 . ReEsponpENt TyForMantT,

ON APPEAL FROM A COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS OF VICTORIA.

H.C. or A, Constitutional Law—Parliament of Commonwealth—Legislative powers—Defe 1917. Existence of war—Power to penalize encouragement of the destruction of SE) perly—The Constitution (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), sec. 51 (v1.), (xxx1x.)—Unlai

Sypwey, Associations Act 1916-1917 (No. 41 of 1916—No. 14 of 1917), sec. 4

Bm ats obs Sec. 4 of the Unlawful Associations Act 1916-1917, in so far as it

an offence during the present state of war to encourage the destructi

Barton, Isaacs, injury of property, is a valid exercise of the defence power of the Commonvi Gavan Duty, Parliament conferred by see. 51 (v1.) and (xxxtx.) of the Constitution. owwers an Rich JJ.

So held by Barton, Isaacs, Gavan Duffy, Powers and Rich JJ., Higg dissenting.

Farey v. Burvett, 21 C.L.R., 433, followed and applied.

Per Higgins J.: In order that an Act of the Commonwealth Parliamen for the protection of private property may be valid as being within the d power, it must at least appear in the Act either by express words or by neo

for the distinctive object of the defence of Australia. Parey v. Bu 21 C.LR., 433, distinguished. 2

Apprat from a Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria.

At the Court of Petty Sessions at Melbourne on 9th. October 1917 an information was heard whereby Michael Joseph Kiernan cha ' that Adela Constantia Mary Pankhurst on 20th September

24 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

at Yarraville, did, contrary to the provisions of the Unlawful Associa- tions Act 1916, encourage the injury of property. Evidence was given that at a meeting at Yarraville at which about 2000 persons were present the defendant made a speech in the course of which she said : —Do you realize that throughout the world they have made in excess profits of war twenty millions for the last three years. They can easily stand a strike ; it does not matter if they do lose a few millions now. As far as we are concerned the Government does not care a bit; we had to adopt other methods ; you saw the results of it last night. Panes of glass smashed,—anyway glass windows have got no feeling whatever. Now, friends, if we can hold out we feel we have the Government in a cleft stick. The Government has got to keep order; the business people won't stand much of it. Well, Mr. Hughes thought that, if they got rid of me, there would be no more of it. The very fact that the people know that they are going to get rid of me is stirring them up to more efforts. It is quite obvious, men, that I did not do £5,000 worth of damage myself, even if I am a very dangerous person. Mr. Hughes says he is going to use a firm hand. I do not think they are going to do all they say ; still this cannot go on without some notice being taken. There was £5,000 worth of damage done, and five persons arrested. One person for every £1,000 worth of damage. Supposing he does send some of us to gaol, there will be others to take their places, and it will take a year or two to build gaols to hold us. They may bring out the military ; we know perfectly well they can call the military out. We are going to have another demonstration on Monday night next. They may call out the military then. But who are the military? Your sons and husbands, your brothers. Mr. Hughes knows if he calls the military out the chances are they would shoot the other way. Supposing he got some of them to do it, what would happen to the country ? Do you think they would get more troops? Where do they get the recruits from, friends? The working-class people. Now, if they shoot the working man, they cannot expect him to shoot for them. If it were asking for some- thing that we were not entitled to, it would be different. But we only ask them to do what they should do: reduce the price of food to the people of this country. Whilst the people are suffering, they