Cain v Doyle [1946] HCA 38

Cain v Doyle [1946] HCA 38

Section 18(1) of the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945 does not create an offence of which the Commonwealth may be guilty; as there is no principal offence, the respondent Doyle cannot be convicted of aiding and abetting a non-existent offence under s. 5 of the Crimes Act.

Parties
Informant/appellant: James Cain; Defendant/respondent: R. H. Doyle; Employer/not a Party But Principal: Commonwealth of Australia; Employee (subject of Dismissal): Charles Leslie Weston Wright
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Order Nisi to Review (criminal/penalty) / High Court of Australia on Appeal From a Magistrate's Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; order nisi discharged.
Legal Topics
Reinstatement in Employment, Crown Liability, Aiding and Abetting Offences, Statutory Interpretation
Employment Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Reinstatement in Employment Crown Liability Aiding and Abetting Offences Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Cain

Informant/appellant

R. H. Doyle

Defendant/respondent

Commonwealth of Australia

Employer/not a Party But Principal

Charles Leslie Weston Wright

Employee (subject of Dismissal)

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Order Nisi to Review (criminal/penalty) / High Court of Australia on Appeal From a Magistrate's Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commonwealth can be convicted of an offence under s. 18 of the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945
  2. 2 Whether an officer (Doyle) can be guilty of aiding or abetting a principal offence which cannot be committed by the Commonwealth
  3. 3 Whether the penalty provision applies to the Crown as employer

Ratio Decidendi

Section 18(1) of the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945 does not create an offence of which the Commonwealth may be guilty; as there is no principal offence, the respondent Doyle cannot be convicted of aiding and abetting a non-existent offence under s. 5 of the Crimes Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; order nisi discharged.

Orders

  • Order nisi to review discharged.
  • Appeal dismissed with costs.