McGuinness v Attorney-General of Victoria [1940] HCA 6

@ Se Provecri ALR SIS ee T 346 +77 io XESS Foll Na Bini 7 sop FollAppl (oll Nat Crime Justice, Police Fol Lew v Her die delinier eter Faunce, salir Az it ice, Police 'ime s oO ian pony Pas REDS eEniaes MPIIVR gy A274 0 IL 207 FERED 75 evan ered) Comwall Gons i QPP innegriy Police fegriny ie Gon y SER ls (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] McGUINNESS " : 3 : E . APPELLANT ;RESPONDENT,

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF VICTORIA . Responpent. APPLICANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.

Crown—Royal Commission—Validity of appointment—Inquiry and report on com- H. C. ov A.

mission of criminal offence—Evidence before commission—Materiality—Sources 1940.

of information for newspaper articles—Refusal of editor to answer questions— bead

Offence—Evidence Act 1928 (Vict.) (No. 3674), secs. 17, 19. MeLpourne, Feb, 29; Evidence—Privilege—Newspaper proprietors and editors—Sources of information. neil

'The appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon the question whether a criminal offence has been committed and, if so, by

whom, is not an interference with or invasion of the ordinary course of justice patham CJ,

A hears Rich, Starke, and is not invalid. Dixon and

MeTiernan JJ.

Case of Commission of Inquiry, (1608) 12 Co. Rep. 31, considered. Clough v. Leahy, (1904) 2 C.L.R. 139, followed. Cock v. Attorney-General, (1909) 28 N.Z.L.R.

No privilege attaches to proprietors of newspapers, editors and writers, which entitles them to refuse to disclose at a trial the sources of the informa- tion which they have used in producing the contents of the newspaper. The rule of practice that in an action of defamation in respect of an article pub- lished in a newspaper the proprietor, editor and writer of the newspaper will not, on an application for discovery or for answers to interrogatories, be com- pelled to disclose the source of the information contained in the article com- plained of, is not founded on the existence of such a privilege.