Ryall v Carroll [1959] HCA 61

Ryall v Carroll [1959] HCA 61

The appeals failed because the respondents' obstruction of Allott's truck was not directed against Allott's occupation as a carrier or against his right to carry on that occupation. The picketing was aimed at preventing cargo from being discharged or removed from the ship, and Allott was impeded only because he happened to be the carrier involved. Section 11(a) did not extend to that mere interference with a particular act done in the course of an occupation, and the necessary intention to interfere with the protected right was not established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Concerning Conviction Under S. 11 of the Observance of Law Ordinance 1921 of the Northern Territory / Appeal by Leave to the High Court of Australia From an Order of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory Allowing an Appeal From a Magistrate's Conviction
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['interference With Right to Carry on Lawful Occupation' 'mens Rea' 'picketing' 'industrial Dispute' 'observance of Law Ordinance 1921 (northern Territory)']
['criminal Law' 'statutory Interpretation' 'industrial Law'] ['interference With Right to Carry on Lawful Occupation' 'mens Rea' 'picketing' 'industrial Dispute' 'observance of Law Ordinance 1921 (northern Territory)']

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

Criminal Appeal Concerning Conviction Under S. 11 of the Observance of Law Ordinance 1921 of the Northern Territory / Appeal by Leave to the High Court of Australia From an Order of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory Allowing an Appeal From a Magistrate's Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether obstructing Allott's truck during picketing of a wharf amounted to interference by a physical act with his right to carry on his lawful occupation under s. 11(a) of the Observance of Law Ordinance 1921." 'Whether s. 11(a) required proof of an intention directed to interfering with the right to carry on the occupation, rather than merely proof of an intentional act that in fact impeded an act done in the course of that occupation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals failed because the respondents' obstruction of Allott's truck was not directed against Allott's occupation as a carrier or against his right to carry on that occupation. The picketing was aimed at preventing cargo from being discharged or removed from the ship, and Allott was impeded only because he happened to be the carrier involved. Section 11(a) did not extend to that mere interference with a particular act done in the course of an occupation, and the necessary intention to interfere with the protected right was not established.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeals dismissed with costs.' 'The same order was to be made in Ryall v. Jamieson, Ryall v. Donnelly, Ryall v. Lawrence and Ryall v. Smith.']