R v Associated Northern Collieries [1911] HCA 73

Ape ee a "i Ar om Cons ka Sat — VR y Meats] Re pacsey VA Siclaide > an Ae ite, fay EM oe fee Sel eg"

14C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 387

THE KING AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

THE ASSOCIATED NORTHERN COLLIERIES

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.}

PLAINTIFFS ; OF THE COMMONWEALTH }

AND

DEFENDANTS. AND OTHERS }

Trusts and monopolies—Inter-State trade—Contract in restraint of—Combination H. C. or A.

in restraint of—Detriment to public—Monopoly—Proof of conspiracy or 1911.

combination—Penalties—Injunction—Australian Industries Preservation =$ —— Act 1906-1910 (No. 9 of 1906), (No. 29 of 1910), secs. 4, 7, 9, 10, 14a, 4c, S¥DNEY, l4p. April 13, 18-

21, 24.98;

(4). Comox Law Rures or Evivence.

At common Jaw and apart from any statutory provisions— June 7-9, ee

(1) Acts of one defendant, however numerous and however pointedly 16, 19-21, 2

in furtherance of a prohibited purpose, are not admissible in evidence as 30; gaas a RS) overt acts of offence against a co-defendant charged with conspiring at 24.2

with the first, unless the two defendants are shown to be associated for August 7- 12,

that purpose, so as to make the purpose common to both. He AB oa 23: (2) Community of purpose may be proved by independent facts, but December 20,

not necessarily so. If the other defendant is shown to be committing

other acts tending to the same end, then though primarily each set of | teaace J. acts is attributable to the person whose acts they are, and to him alone,

there may be such a concurrence of time, character, direction and result

as naturally to lead to the inference that such separate acts were the

outcome of pre-concert, or some mutual contemporaneous engagement,

or that they were themselves the manifestations of mutual consent to

carry out a common purpose, thus forming as well as evidencing a com-

bination to effect the one object towards which the separate acts are