R v Regos and Morgan [1947] HCA 19

R v Regos and Morgan [1947] HCA 19

The Black Marketing Act 1942, ss. 3 and 17 (a), authorized the Governor-General to declare any act or omission in contravention of regulations to be black marketing. The ejusdem generis rule does not restrict this power because no relevant genus is identified among the specific offences listed, and keeping proper books and accounts is sufficiently connected to marketing regulation. Regulation 3 was valid.

Parties
Prosecutor: The King; Accused: James Regos; Accused: Arthur Edward Morgan; Accused: Jack Neal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Case Stated (question Reserved for Full Court Under S. 72 Judiciary Act 1903 1946)
Outcome
question answered in the affirmative; regulation found valid
Legal Topics
Black Marketing, Price Control, Regulations, Statutory Construction, Ejusdem Generis Rule, Regulatory Offences
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Statutory Interpretation Black Marketing Price Control Regulations Statutory Construction Ejusdem Generis Rule +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The King

Prosecutor

James Regos

Accused

Arthur Edward Morgan

Accused

Jack Neal

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Case Stated (question Reserved for Full Court Under S. 72 Judiciary Act 1903 1946)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether reg. 3 of the Black Marketing Regulations was validly authorized by the Black Marketing Act 1942, s. 3 and s. 17 (a)
  2. 2 Whether omission to keep proper books and accounts under reg. 49 of the National Security (Prices) Regulations could validly be declared black marketing under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Black Marketing Act 1942, ss. 3 and 17 (a), authorized the Governor-General to declare any act or omission in contravention of regulations to be black marketing. The ejusdem generis rule does not restrict this power because no relevant genus is identified among the specific offences listed, and keeping proper books and accounts is sufficiently connected to marketing regulation. Regulation 3 was valid.

Court Disposition

question answered in the affirmative; regulation found valid

Orders

  • Question reserved answered: Yes
  • Case remitted to trial judge Dixon J.