The Queen v O'Dea, Peter John [1983] FCA 338

The Queen v O'Dea, Peter John [1983] FCA 338

Despite the defendant's claimed intentions, his statement constituted a serious affront and wilful insult to the Commission. The insult was serious but not so grave as to warrant imprisonment, so a monetary penalty is appropriate.

Parties
Prosecutor: THE QUEEN; Defendant: PETER JOHN O'DEA
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 1983
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentence and Order After Finding of Guilt
Outcome
Defendant convicted. Monetary penalty imposed. Costs awarded to the Crown. Imprisonment in default of payment.
Legal Topics
Penalty for Wilfully Insulting a Royal Commission
Criminal Law Penalty for Wilfully Insulting a Royal Commission

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 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE QUEEN

Prosecutor

PETER JOHN O'DEA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentence and Order After Finding of Guilt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant wilfully insulted the Royal Commission
  2. 2 Appropriate penalty for the offence

Ratio Decidendi

Despite the defendant's claimed intentions, his statement constituted a serious affront and wilful insult to the Commission. The insult was serious but not so grave as to warrant imprisonment, so a monetary penalty is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted. Monetary penalty imposed. Costs awarded to the Crown. Imprisonment in default of payment.

Orders

  • The defendant be convicted on the charge brought against him.
  • The defendant be penalised $150; a stay of payment of 30 days is granted.