Sickerdick Informant v Ashton [1918] HCA 54
Statements in the pamphlet, when read fairly, were likely to prejudice recruiting of His Majesty's Forces, and regulation 28 of the War Precautions Regulations was legally valid under both the Act and the Constitution.
- Parties
- Appellant: Frederick William Sickerdick; Respondent: John Ashton
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 26 September 1918
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Dismissal of Information by Court of Petty Sessions
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Defence Power, Ultra Vires, War Precautions Acts, Regulations Affecting Recruiting
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Frederick William Sickerdick
Appellant
John Ashton
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Dismissal of Information by Court of Petty Sessions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether reg. 28 of War Precautions Regulations 1915 is within the power conferred by sec. 4 of War Precautions Act 1914-1916
- 2 Whether the War Precautions Act 1914-1916 is within the power conferred by sec. 51(vi) of the Constitution
- 3 Whether the pamphlet printed contained statements likely to prejudice the recruiting of His Majesty's Forces
Ratio Decidendi
Statements in the pamphlet, when read fairly, were likely to prejudice recruiting of His Majesty's Forces, and regulation 28 of the War Precautions Regulations was legally valid under both the Act and the Constitution.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Order of dismissal discharged
- Case remitted to Court of Petty Sessions to be dealt with in accordance with judgment of this Court
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