Krygger v Williams [1912] HCA 65
A law requiring compulsory military training, even for those with religious objections, does not prohibit the free exercise of religion within the meaning of section 116 of the Constitution. Religious objections do not excuse from mandatory training; the Act allows for accommodation through non-combatant duties but not for total exemption.
- Parties
- Appellant: Edgar Roy Krygger; Respondent: Williams
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 15 October 1912
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / On Appeal From a Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Compulsory Military Training, Religious Objection, Defence Act, Exemptions, Constitution S 116
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Edgar Roy Krygger
Appellant
Williams
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From a Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether compulsory military training under the Defence Act 1903-1910 infringes section 116 of the Constitution by prohibiting the free exercise of religion
- 2 Whether a conscientious objection to military service based on religious grounds constitutes a 'lawful excuse' under the Defence Act 1903-1910, s 135
Ratio Decidendi
A law requiring compulsory military training, even for those with religious objections, does not prohibit the free exercise of religion within the meaning of section 116 of the Constitution. Religious objections do not excuse from mandatory training; the Act allows for accommodation through non-combatant duties but not for total exemption.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Decision of the Court of Petty Sessions affirmed.
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