R v Brewer [1942] HCA 33

R v Brewer [1942] HCA 33

The statutory definition of 'agent' in the Secret Commissions Act 1905 includes current, past, and intending agents only for persons acting 'for or on behalf of' another, but the specific addition of 'a person serving under the Crown' is limited to those actively serving at the relevant time. It cannot be read to include former Crown servants for the purposes of the offence. Therefore, Ritchie was not 'a person serving under the Crown' at the time of payment, and a conviction based on the contrary interpretation cannot stand.

Parties
Accused: Mervyn MacPherson Brewer; Prosecution: The King
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Case Stated on Questions of Law – Appeal From Conviction Before Full Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; verdict of not guilty entered.
Legal Topics
Secret Commissions, Agency Law, Service Under the Crown, Scope of Statutory Offences
Criminal Law Public Sector Corruption Secret Commissions Agency Law Service Under the Crown Scope of Statutory Offences

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mervyn MacPherson Brewer

Accused

The King

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Case Stated on Questions of Law – Appeal From Conviction Before Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a person who has been dismissed from service under the Crown is an 'agent' under s. 3 of the Secret Commissions Act 1905 at the time of receiving a secret commission.
  2. 2 Whether the contracts procured were contracts 'with the Crown' within the meaning of the statute.
  3. 3 The proper construction of 'person serving under the Crown' in the statutory definition of 'agent'.

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory definition of 'agent' in the Secret Commissions Act 1905 includes current, past, and intending agents only for persons acting 'for or on behalf of' another, but the specific addition of 'a person serving under the Crown' is limited to those actively serving at the relevant time. It cannot be read to include former Crown servants for the purposes of the offence. Therefore, Ritchie was not 'a person serving under the Crown' at the time of payment, and a conviction based on the contrary interpretation cannot stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; verdict of not guilty entered.

Orders

  • The verdict of guilty is set aside.
  • A verdict of not guilty is to be entered.