Burns v Ransley [1949] HCA 45

79 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 101

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

BURNS. : 3 é : E APPELLANT ; DEFENDANT, AND RANSLEY S : 1 5 3 RESPONDENT. CoMPLAINANT,

Constitutional Law (Cth.)—Powers of Commonwealth Parliament—Legislation— 4. ©, op A. Validity—Criminal law—Sedition—Public debate—Answers orally made to 1949, questions—Seditious intention—Proof—Conviction—Appeal—The Constitution = \~ (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), #8. 51 (xxxix.), 61—Crimes Act 1914-1946 (No. 12 of BrisBanz, 1914—No. 77 of 1946), ss. 24a (1) (6), (d), (2), 248 (2), 24D (1)*—Judiciary June 14, 15. Act 1903-1948 (No. 6 of 1903—No. 65 of 1948), ss. 23 (2) (b), 39 (2) ()—

MELBOURNE, The Justices Acts 1886 to 1948 (Q.) (50 Vict. No. 17—12 Geo. VI. No. 28), October 7. 8. 226. Latham 0.5., Sections 244 (1) (0), (d), 248 (2) and 24D of the Crimes Act 1914-1946 are Rich, Dixon

within the constitutional powers vested in the Commonwealth Parliament. MeTiernan JJ. So held by the whole Court.

At a public debate at Brisbane upon the subject " that communism is not compatible with personal liberty," B., who was a representative of the Australian Communist Party, was asked, "' We all realize the world could become embroiled in a third world war in the immediate future between Soviet Russia and the Western Powers. In the event of such a war what would be the attitude and actions of the Communist Party in Australia ?" B. replied, " If Australia was involved in such a war it would be between Soviet Russia and American and British Imperialism. It would be a counter- revolutionary war. We would oppose that war. It would be a reactionary war." Pressed for "a direct answer" B. said "'We would oppose that war. We would fight on the side of Soviet Russia. That is a direct answer." B. was summarily convicted under s. 24D of the Crimes Act 1914-1946 of uttering seditious words.