Burns v Ransley [1949] HCA 45

High Court of Australia Latham C.J. Rich, Dixon and McTiernan JJ. Burns v Ransley [1949] HCA 45

ORDER Appeal dismissed.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Oct. 7 Latham C.J.

This matter comes before the Court upon a case stated by Mr. Stanley Wilson, Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, Brisbane, under The Justices Acts 1886 to 1948 Q., s. 226. It is an appeal under the Judiciary Act 1903-1948, s. 39 (2) (b) brought in the manner prescribed by the law of the State of Queensland—High Court Rules Part II., s. IX., Rule 1. The appellant Gilbert Burns was prosecuted upon the following charge:—That he was guilty of uttering seditious words in that "in answer to a question "We all realize the world could become embroiled in a third world war in the immediate future between Soviet Russia and the Western Powers. In the event of such a war what would be the attitude and actions of the Communist Party in Australia?" he did utter words expressive of a seditious intention within the meaning of the said Act, namely, "If Australia was involved in such a war it would be between Soviet Russia and American and British Imperialism. It would be a counter-revolutionary war. It would be a reactionary war. We would oppose that war, we would fight on the side of the Soviet Union" or words to the like effect, contrary to the Acts in such case made and provided."

It was proved that the appellant uttered the words alleged, except that he used the words "Soviet Russia" instead of the words "Soviet Union." The statement was made at a public debate in Brisbane between representatives of the Queensland People's Party and the Australian Communist Party upon the subject "That Communism is not compatible with personal liberty." After a question had been asked about the monarchy a person in the body of the hall asked the appellant the question set forth in the complaint. The appellant replied in the words stated down to "It would be a reactionary war." The questioner said that he wanted a direct answer. The appellant then said: "We would oppose that war. We would fight on the side of Soviet Russia. That is a direct answer."