Pearce v Jones [1917] HCA 50

Seconding a resolution that calls upon others to refuse assisting in recruiting constitutes making a prejudicial statement under reg. 28(b), a criminal offence; but merely putting the resolution to the meeting as chairman does not constitute making the statement and is not an offence.

Parties: Appellant: Alfred John Pearce; Appellant: William Smith; Respondent: William Percival Jones
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 24 September 1917
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Review From Court of Petty Sessions
Outcome: Smith's appeal dismissed; Pearce's appeal allowed.
Legal Topics: War Precautions Regulations, Statements Prejudicial to Recruiting, Criminal Liability by Participation in Resolutions

Criminal Law Military Law War Precautions Regulations Statements Prejudicial to Recruiting Criminal Liability by Participation in Resolutions

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Alfred John Pearce

Appellant

William Smith

Appellant

William Percival Jones

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Review From Court of Petty Sessions

Legal Issues

1 Whether putting a resolution to a meeting amounts to making a prejudicial statement under reg. 28(b)
2 Whether seconding a resolution constitutes making a prejudicial statement under reg. 28(b)
3 Whether the resolution was a statement likely to prejudice recruiting

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Smith's appeal dismissed; Pearce's appeal allowed.

Orders

Smith's appeal dismissed with costs.
Pearce's appeal allowed. Order appealed from discharged with costs, £4 4s. Respondent to pay costs of appeal.