R v Judd [1919] HCA 9

R v Judd [1919] HCA 9

There is no indication in the language of the War Precautions Act of a contrary intention to exclude sec. 19 of the Acts Interpretation Act. Accordingly, prosecution by indictment under the War Precautions Act may be in the name of a Minister acting for or on behalf of the Attorney-General.

Parties
Appellant: The King; Respondent: Edward Ernest Judd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 1919
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Authority to Prosecute, Ministerial Delegation, War Precautions Act, Construction of Statutes
Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Authority to Prosecute Ministerial Delegation War Precautions Act Construction of Statutes

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The King

Appellant

Edward Ernest Judd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an offence under the War Precautions Act 1914-1916 can be prosecuted by indictment in the name of a Minister acting for or on behalf of the Attorney-General
  2. 2 Whether a contrary intention appears in the legislation to exclude sec. 19 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1918

Ratio Decidendi

There is no indication in the language of the War Precautions Act of a contrary intention to exclude sec. 19 of the Acts Interpretation Act. Accordingly, prosecution by indictment under the War Precautions Act may be in the name of a Minister acting for or on behalf of the Attorney-General.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order appealed from discharged
  • Question answered in the affirmative