McWaters v Day [1989] HCA 59

McWaters v Day [1989] HCA 59

The Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 Cth established a supplementary military disciplinary code and did not evince an intention to exclude the operation of ordinary State criminal law. Because s. 40(2) of that Act and s. 16(1)(a) of the Traffic Act 1949 Q. served different purposes and the Commonwealth law did not cover the field, there was no inconsistency for the purposes of s. 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution. The order nisi for prohibition should therefore be discharged.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
High Court Appeal Concerning Prohibition and Alleged Inconsistency Under S. 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution / Appeal From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['section 109 Inconsistency' 'defence Force Discipline' 'ordinary Criminal Law and Military Law' 'driving Under the Influence' 'commonwealth Places' 'prohibition']
['constitutional Law' 'military Law' 'criminal Law'] ['section 109 Inconsistency' 'defence Force Discipline' 'ordinary Criminal Law and Military Law' 'driving Under the Influence' 'commonwealth Places' 'prohibition']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

High Court Appeal Concerning Prohibition and Alleged Inconsistency Under S. 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution / Appeal From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s. 40(2) of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 Cth was inconsistent with s. 16(1)(a) of the Traffic Act 1949 Q. for the purposes of s. 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution.' 'Whether the Discipline Act evinced an intention to cover the subject-matter to the exclusion of ordinary State criminal law.' 'Whether it was necessary to consider the validity of s. 40(2) of the Discipline Act under the defence power.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 Cth established a supplementary military disciplinary code and did not evince an intention to exclude the operation of ordinary State criminal law. Because s. 40(2) of that Act and s. 16(1)(a) of the Traffic Act 1949 Q. served different purposes and the Commonwealth law did not cover the field, there was no inconsistency for the purposes of s. 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution. The order nisi for prohibition should therefore be discharged.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['Set aside the orders of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland except as to costs.' 'In lieu thereof order that the order nisi for prohibition be discharged.' "Order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal to this Court."]