The Queen v McDonald, Charles Walter & Ors [1983] FCA 339
Consistent penalties should be imposed in line with prior cases, taking into account union pressure and the importance of the Royal Commission's inquiry. Fines, not custodial sentences, are appropriate but defendants must pay costs.
- Parties
- Prosecutor: The Queen; Defendant: Charles Walter McDonald; Defendant: Steven Black; Defendant: Kenneth Charles Miller; Defendant: Peter John O'Tea; Defendant: Thomas McLennan
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 26 October 1983
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Sentence and Orders After Conviction
- Outcome
- Convicted. Fines imposed. Costs awarded.
- Legal Topics
- Penalty for Refusal to Answer Questions Before Royal Commission
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Queen
Prosecutor
Charles Walter McDonald
Defendant
Steven Black
Defendant
Kenneth Charles Miller
Defendant
Peter John O'Tea
Defendant
Thomas McLennan
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentence and Orders After Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Appropriate penalty for refusal to answer questions before Royal Commission
- 2 Whether imprisonment should be imposed for refusals
- 3 Consideration of consistency with prior sentences
Ratio Decidendi
Consistent penalties should be imposed in line with prior cases, taking into account union pressure and the importance of the Royal Commission's inquiry. Fines, not custodial sentences, are appropriate but defendants must pay costs.
Court Disposition
Convicted. Fines imposed. Costs awarded.
Orders
- Each defendant convicted on each charge save for Peter John O'Tea in G42 of 1982, which is dismissed.
- Charles Walter McDonald: $400 on G34 of 1982; $50 on G35 of 1982.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment