Krygger v Williams [1912] HCA 65

Easfrueery Gopeknee Cee a Australia; ustralig:, h (2000) 45 And Nahata! ATR AS 139t, — ABsiy the Wa MPr te 26 : 366 HIGH COURT [[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA. KRYGGER i _ ¥ : é A . _ APPEI DEFENDANT, AND WILLIAMS 7 ' ? P . " . ReEspo. INFORMANT, ON APPEAL FROM A COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS OF VICTORIA. Defence—Compulsory military training—Religious objection to bear arms—Validit H.C.orA. of Act —Exemption—Bxcuse—Defence Act 1903-1910 (No. 12 of 1901—No. 37 1912, of 1910), secs. 61, 125, 135, 188, 143—-The Constitution (63 & 64 Vict. c. ae sec. 116. Cen The provisions of the Defence Act 1903-1910 imposing obligations on October 15. yale inhabitants of the Commonwealth in respect to military training do Grimtn .3., prohibit the free exercise of any religion, and, therefore, are not an infri and Barton J.

Appl =

ment of sec. 116 of the Constitution.

A person who is forbidden by the doctrines of his religion to bear arms not thereby exempted or excused from undergoing the military training rendering the personal service required by Part XII. of the Defence 1903-1910.

Decision of Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria affirmed.

AppEaL from a Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria.

Williams charged that Edgar Roy Krygger did, during they of service pile 1912, paibont lawful excuse fail to render

1911.

: ; :

: j ; CLR.) OF AUSTRALIA.

At the hearing evidence was given by the informant that the H.C. or A

defendant was liable to render military service as a senior cadet and had not attended any drills during the year. The magistrate then asked the defendant what explanation he had to give, and the defendant said: "I decline to render military service because it is opposed to the will of God. I spend all my time reading the Scriptures." The defendant then went into the witness-box and, having made an affirmation, was asked by the magistrate: " What. are the grounds of your objections to military training?" The defendant answered : " All my spare time is occupied in reading the Scriptures. It is against my conscience and the Word of God to attend drill." The magistrate asked : " Why is it against the Word of God?" The defendant answered : " The Scriptures tell us 'if thine enemy smite thee on the one cheek turn to him the other also. We have to do good to those who hate us, and especially we are told in the Bible that in the last days there shall be wars and rumors of wars, but the children of God are not to be troubled by these things. We are told that we are to be in the world but not of the world. Those that take the sword must. perish by the sword." The magistrate then said: "Have you any witnesses?" The defendant answered: "No." The magis- trate again asked : "Do you affirm that it is your honest belief that it is wrong to serve as a cadet." The defendant answered : "Yes, if I want to obey God." The case was then adjourned, and on the further hearing the defendant, who was then represented by his solicitor, went into the box and gave the following evidence :—" Attendance at drill is against my conscience and the word of God. If thine enemy smite thee on the one check turn to him the other is part of my religion. The Lord Jesus Christ has purchased me with His own body. He delivered me and gave me power to become a son of God, and left me a free agent to choose whether to serve Him or not. Anything therefore such as compulsory military training is anti-Christ, and is not follow- ing the Lord Jesus. Therefore I can have no part in the matter whatever. I put military training on the same footing as gamb- ling. To me it is as much a sin in the sight of God as gambling, racing, or any other sin; no matter what it might be God makes no allowance for sin. If I went to military training I would be