The Queen v O'Dea, Peter John [1983] FCA 257

The Queen v O'Dea, Peter John [1983] FCA 257

The defendant's statements, comprising a sustained and scornful attack on the motives and conduct of the Commission, constituted a wilful insult under s.60(1) of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth), as they were intended to disparage the Commission itself and its operations.

Parties
Prosecutor: The Queen; Defendant: Peter John O'Dea
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 1983
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Liability Determination (pre Penalty Submissions)
Outcome
Charge proved; no formal conviction entered pending penalty submissions.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Royal Commission, Wilful Insult, Royal Commissions Act
Criminal Law Public Law Contempt of Royal Commission Wilful Insult 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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecutor

Peter John O'Dea

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Liability Determination (pre Penalty Submissions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's statements constituted an insult to the Royal Commission
  2. 2 Whether the insult was wilful within the meaning of s.60(1) Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's statements, comprising a sustained and scornful attack on the motives and conduct of the Commission, constituted a wilful insult under s.60(1) of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth), as they were intended to disparage the Commission itself and its operations.

Court Disposition

Charge proved; no formal conviction entered pending penalty submissions.