Associated Newspapers Ltd v Wavish [1956] HCA 69

Associated Newspapers Ltd v Wavish [1956] HCA 69

Special leave was refused because, on the Court's construction of s. 169 as applied to s. 171 of the Police Offences Act, an article is obscene if it satisfies either par. (a) or par. (b) of s. 169 (1), while the considerations in sub-s. (2) must be taken into account in every case; applying that construction, the article was clearly within the definition of "obscene" and an appeal could not succeed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / High Court Application From an Order of Martin J Making Absolute an Order Nisi to Review a Magistrate's Decision on a Charge Under S. 171 of the Police Offences Act Aided by S. 169
Outcome
Application refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['obscene Publications' 'police Offences Act' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'order Nisi to Review' 'ejusdem Generis']
['criminal Law' 'statutory Interpretation' 'appellate Procedure'] ['obscene Publications' 'police Offences Act' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'order Nisi to Review' 'ejusdem Generis']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal / High Court Application From an Order of Martin J Making Absolute an Order Nisi to Review a Magistrate's Decision on a Charge Under S. 171 of the Police Offences Act Aided by S. 169

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether special leave to appeal should be granted from Martin J's order reversing the magistrate's dismissal of the information." 'Whether the publication was obscene within the definition in s. 169 as applied to s. 171 of the Police Offences Act.' 'Whether the word "and" in s. 169 (1) imposed cumulative conditions in pars. (a) and (b).' 'Whether sub-s. (2) of s. 169 must be considered in every case when determining whether an article is obscene.']

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave was refused because, on the Court's construction of s. 169 as applied to s. 171 of the Police Offences Act, an article is obscene if it satisfies either par. (a) or par. (b) of s. 169 (1), while the considerations in sub-s. (2) must be taken into account in every case; applying that construction, the article was clearly within the definition of "obscene" and an appeal could not succeed.

Court Disposition

Application refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['Application refused with costs.']