Corbet v Lovekin [1915] HCA 16

562 HIGH COURT [1915.

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

CORBET . é é . 4 a ' . APPELLANT ; CoMPLAINANT, AND LOVEKIN AND OTHERS 5 i . RESPONDENTS. DEFENDANTS,

ON APPEAL FROM A COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA.

H.C. or A, Practice—Appeal to High Court in criminal matter—Inference to be drawn from

1915, facts—Judiciary Act 1903-1910 (No. 6 of 1903—No. 34 of 1910), sec. 35 (1) (b) Cae, —War Precautions Act 1914 (No. 10 of 1914), sec. 4—Statutory Rules 1914, MeLpourne No. 154, reg. 10. March 22.

On a complaint for publishing information which might be directly or indirectly useful to the enemy the magistrate found that the information pub-

Tes Ditty, lished was not of such a character that it might be directly or indirectly use- nomen sun ful to the enemy, and he dismissed the complaint.

Held, that special leave to appeal to the High Court from the decision should be rescinded :

By Grifith C.J. and Gavan Dufy, Powers and Rick JJ., on the ground that the only question was what inference should be drawn from the facts ;

By Isaacs J., on the ground that the case was governed by Lather v. The King, 19 C.L.R., 409.

Apprat from a Court of Petty Sessions of Western Australia.

At the Court of Petty Sessions at Perth on 25th January 1915 a complaint was heard whereby Hugh Annan Corbet, Chief of the Censorship Staff of Western Australia, charged that on 15th December 1914 Arthur Lovekin, Paul William Herman Thiel and

19 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

Alfred Edward Morgans, proprietors of the Daily News news- paper, did, without lawful authority, publish information with respect to measures connected with the defence of the Suez Canal, the information being such as might be directly or indirectly useful to the enemy.

The publication in question purported to be extracts from the diary of a passenger on board the steamship Maloja on a voyage from England to Australia. The relevant extracts were those dated 25th and 26th November 1914, and were as follows:—"In Suez Canal. At various points trenches were being made by Indian soldiers; at others trenches had been completed, and were manned by our soldiers. These were on both banks of the Canal, and extended for some miles on the east side. There was an Indian regiment on the east bank of the Canal, near Port Said, provided and maintained by the Maharajah of Patiala. At the point on the Canal where the cable crosses, our troops, consisting of British, Indians, and Soudanese, were encamped. Trenches had been dug and sand-bagged, and apparently were very secure fighting places. Camel and mule corps, machine guns."