The Queen v James Francis Reid & Ors [1982] FCA 300

The Queen v James Francis Reid & Ors [1982] FCA 300

The refusal by each defendant to answer, by responding 'No comment' or expressly refusing, constituted a refusal under s.6 of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 as the questions were relevant to the scope of the Commission’s inquiry and any perceived ambiguity or imprecision did not excuse compliance. The prosecutions were made out as the elements were proved.

Parties
Prosecutor: The Queen; Defendant: James Francis Reid; Defendant: Kevin Noel Reynolds; Defendant: Harold Robert Olsen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 1982
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
Defendants convicted on all charges; monetary penalties imposed.
Legal Topics
Royal Commissions, Refusal to Answer Questions, Relevance and Ambiguity of Questions, Penalties Under Royal Commissions Act
Criminal Law Administrative Law Industrial Law Royal Commissions Refusal to Answer Questions Relevance and Ambiguity of Questions Penalties Under Royal Commissions Act

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecutor

James Francis Reid

Defendant

Kevin Noel Reynolds

Defendant

Harold Robert Olsen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' refusal to answer questions before a Royal Commission constituted an offence under s.6 of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the questions asked were relevant to the inquiry as required under s.6
  3. 3 Whether the ambiguity or imprecision in the questions excused the refusal to answer

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal by each defendant to answer, by responding 'No comment' or expressly refusing, constituted a refusal under s.6 of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 as the questions were relevant to the scope of the Commission’s inquiry and any perceived ambiguity or imprecision did not excuse compliance. The prosecutions were made out as the elements were proved.

Court Disposition

Defendants convicted on all charges; monetary penalties imposed.

Orders

  • James Francis Reid: $450 on charge WAG28/1982, $50 each on charges WAG29/1982, WAG30/1982, and WAG31/1982.
  • Kevin Noel Reynolds: $450 on charge WAG32/1982, $50 each on charges WAG33/1982 and WAG34/1982.