Consolidated Press Ltd v McRae [1955] HCA 11

High Court of Australia Dixon C.J. McTiernan, Fullagar, Kitto and Taylor JJ. Consolidated Press Ltd v McRae [1955] HCA 11

ORDER Appeal allowed with costs. Order of the Supreme Court dated 14th April 1954 discharged. In lieu thereof order that the rule nisi dated 15th March 1954 be discharged with costs.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Mar. 18 Dixon C.J., Kitto and Taylor JJ.

This is an appeal from an order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales making absolute a rule nisi calling upon the appellants to show cause why they should not be dealt with for contempt of court. By the rule absolute the Supreme Court imposed on the appellant Consolidated Press Ltd. a fine of £500 and on the appellant James Kingston Watson a fine of £50. Consolidated Press Ltd. is the printer and publisher of the Daily Telegraph newspaper and the appellant Watson was at the material time the acting editor. On 9th March 1954 some matter was published in the Daily Telegraph concerning the arrest upon certain charges of one Studley-Ruxton and his treatment by the police. The publication of this matter was adjudged to amount to contempt of court. On the following day some further matter was published in the Daily Telegraph and that also was made a subject of the rule nisi. A majority of the Full Court (Street C.J. and Owen J., Clancy J. dissenting) held that the publication of this matter did not amount to contempt and on the appeal it does not come into question.

Studley-Ruxton was apprehended on 25th February 1954. All that we know of the proceedings against him comes from a more or less formal record made apparently for the purposes of the court of petty sessions. A copy is in evidence. According to this record he was apprehended at 6.30 p.m. on that day; the police officers apprehending him were Burchall and Hill and upon the charge sheet at 8.30 p.m. there was entered a charge of false pretences consisting in passing a valueless cheque to one Johnston. The record shows that a second charge was laid by the same officers, a charge of offering a bribe to the police officer named Hill. The time of the charge is again entered as 8.30 p.m. The record shows too that at 10 a.m. on 1st March 1954 another charge of false pretences was entered against him. In effect the charge was that he gave a valueless cheque to one Noble. In this case the time of apprehension is given as 5.30 p.m. on 25th February 1954. The names of the police officers apprehending him were Heys and Smaills. Again at 10 a.m. on 1st March 1954 a fourth charge, one of larceny of a camera, was entered against him. The time of apprehension is again given by the record as 5.30 p.m. on 25th February and the apprehending officers as Heys and Smaills.