Troy v Wrigglesworth [1919] HCA 31

OF AUSTRALIA.

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

APPELLANT ;

'TROY

DerenpDant,

AND

-WRIGGLESWORTH : " : ' . ReEsPonDENT. __InrorMANT,

ON APPEAL FROM A COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS OF VICTORIA.

High Court—Appellate jurisdiction—State Court of summary jurisdiction invested with Federal jurisdiction—Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria—Court not con- sisting of Police Magistrate—Matter involving interpretation of Constitution— Information—Offence against State police law—Immunity of Commonwealth officer —The Constitution (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), secs. 71,73, 76, 77—Judiciary Act 1903-1915 (No. 6 of 1903—No. 4 of 1915), secs. 30, 38, 38a, 39—Justices Act 1915 (Vict.) (No. 2675), sec. 63—Motor Car Act 1915 (Vict.) (No. 2702), sec. 10.

Held, by Barton, Isaacs, Higgins and Rich JJ. (Gavan Duffy J. dissenting), that where a State Court of summary jurisdiction not consisting of one of the magistrates specified in sec. 39 (2) (d) of the Judiciary Act 1903-1915 entertains ' matter which is one of Federal jurisdiction, it is exercising, though unlawfully, Federal jurisdiction, even although it professes to be exercising State jurisdic- tion, and an appeal will lie from its decision to the High Court under that section.

Roberts v. Ahern, 1 C.L.R., 406; Bazter v. Commissioners of Taxation (N.S.W.), 4 C.L.R., 1087, and Miller v. Haweis, 5 C.L.R., 89, considered and followed.

'On a prosecution in a Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria, constituted of 'two Justices of the Peace, for driving a motor-car in a manner dangerous to the public, contrary to the provisions of the Motor Car Act 1915 (Vict.), the objection was taken that, as the defendant when driving the motor-car was 'engaged in the performance of his duties as an officer of the Defence Depart- _ ment, the matter was one of Federal jurisdiction, and therefore should be