The Queen v McDonald, Charles Walter & Ors [1983] FCA 339

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 23
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Appropriate penalty for refusal to answer questions before Royal Commission
  2. 2 Whether imprisonment should be imposed for refusals
  3. 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.