R v Cox [1945] HCA 18

Appl appl Re, «GPS Appl Cons Appl

lajor Tracey, —_racey, Re; Tracey, Re; racey, Re; aa ee y

Fs Ex parte Ryan irene fersony_ Vikovic y

i mteAip SAtRI" Farerloet ERTS pilcperice fesonear Aepeele Ti JR 1395 al VRibo

Defence—Army—Mutiny—* Joins in .

REPORTS OF CASES

DETERMINED IN THE

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA] t THE KING

AGAINST COX AND OTHERS; Ex parte SMITH.

+ any mutinyin . . . His Majestys military forces "—Persons " subject to military law' —Member of forces sentenced by court-martial to detention and discharge from forces—Discharge effected— Detention thereafter at military detention barracks—Other confinees similarly sentenced, discharged and detained—Attempt to break out of barracks by force— Whether mutiny—Charge—Jurisdiction of court-martial—Ruling by Judge Advocate-General—Effect—Prohibition—Judicial power of Commonwealth—The Constitution (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), ss. 71, 75 (v.)—Defence Act 1903-1941 (No. 20 of 1903—No. 4 of 1941), ss. 4, 55—Army Act (Imp.) (44 & 45 Vict. c. 58— 7 & 8 Geo, VI. c. 18), 88. 7 (3), 158 (2)—Australian Military Regulations (SR. 1927 No, 1491945 No. 68), regs. 196. (1), 575 (10)—National Security (Military Forces) Regulations (S.R. 1941 No, 1—1945 No. 30), reg. 14.

Held :—

(1) By the whole Court, that the effect of s, 158 (2) of the Army Act (Imp.) is that a soldier who has been convicted by court-martial and discharged as well as sentenced to undergo detention is, during the term of his detention, subject to all the provisions of the Army Act (Imp.) relevant to his status and situation.

(2) By Latham C.J., Rich, Dixon and Williams JJ., that a charge cannot be maintained under

. 7 (3) of the Army Act (Imp.) in respect of a disturbance or defiance of authority by confinees all of whom have been discharged from the forces as well as sentenced,