"ULTRA VIEES."

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1936, 19 December 1913, Page 7

"ULTRA VIEES."

JUDGEMENT IN COLONIAL SUGAR COMPANY'S CASE. THE POWERS OF ROYAL COMMISSIONS. PRIVY COUNCIL'S DECISION. CANNOT COMPEL ANSWERS OR DOCUMENTS. By Telegraph—Proa? Association-Copjrlz2it. (Rec. December 18, 10.5' p.m.)'? London, Decemer i 3- . 11l the appeal case, Attorney-General' of tile Commonwealth versus the Cola-' nial' Sugar Company, Lord llaklanc (Lord Chancellor), in his statedthatthoßoy.il Commissions Acts were ultra vires, so far as they purported to enable a Royal Commission to compel answers and the production of documents. ,It would be sufficient to make a declaraion to that effect, with liberty to apply to the High Court .to enforce it by injunction or otherwise. His Lordship, therefore, advises His Majesty that such declaration should bo made, that such liberty to apply should bo granted, and that tho order of the High Court should be varied accordingly. Ths Root Question. The judgment proceeds: The question at the root of the controversy, however, still remained —Wore the Royal Commission's Acts ultra vires?, Tlio burden of proof rested upon those who affirmed that tlicso Acts were within the Commonwealth Parliament's powers. In His Lordship's'opinion, any authority over the individual, sought to be established by the Hoyal Commissions Acts, or new offences created thereby, or drastic powers conferred thereby, could not be said to be incidental to any power at present existing by Statute, or Common Law. The English law gives Royal Commissions no title to compel answer from witnesses. Until, added His Lordship, the Commonwealth Parliament has entrusted a Royal Commission with a duty to inquire into a specific subject, legislation regarding which power has . been assigned to Parliament by tho Federal Constitution, that Parliament cannot confer such powers as tho Royal Commissions Acts contain, on tho footinn that they are incidental to inquiries .which it may some day direct. Doference to the High Court. Having arrived at this conclusion, Their Lordships did not think that tho Royal Commissions Acts, in tho form in which they stood could, without amendment, bo brought within the powers of tlio Commonwealth Legislature. Their Lordships hesitate to tlilfer from tho Federal High Court Judges, particularly Sir Samuel Griffiths and Sir Edward Barton, wiio have a special knowledge of tlio Australian Constitution, but the question they have dccidcd depends simply upon the interpretation of an Act of Parliament. In Their Lordships' opinion, without redrafting tho Royal Commissions Act, it would bfi impossible to liso them as justification for the steps contemplated by tho Sugar Commission in order to make its inquiry effective Tho conclusion of Mr. Justice Isaacs and ill'. Justice Iliggins was entitled to some weight—namely, that it was impossible to pronounce, in advance, that certain questions might not prove relevant to matters which .all the Judge;; held to be- proper subjects of inquiry. If the company were compelled to answer certain questions-, particularly those relating to its business, this would be a serious interference with liberty, but their Lordships were neither at liberty, nor were they competent, to express an opinion regarding tho policy of doing so. As the respondents have substantially succeeded, tho appellants must pay the costs of this appeal, "Times" Comment. The London "Times." in a leading article dealing with tho judgment, remarks that it does not know whether all colonial lawyers will agree that the Royal Commissions Acts are ultra vires, but they-will see, in tho Privy Council's decision, a sign that that tribunal is not shirking its responsibility. One ingenious argument was based upon the suggestion that the information sought in tins particular ease might bo useful for tho purpose of forwarding constitutional alterations, but there was some force in Sir Samuel Griffiths's (Federal Chief Justice) rejoinder that such a construction would virtually delete some most important constitutional restrictions. Conflicts 'between Federal'and State legislation in tho United States wero fierce and heated, and Australia was fortunate in being able to settle Iter conflictinjAclaims before the Privy Council. '<■'

This was an appttl by tho Commonwealth Government from the decision of the Federal High Court Oft the '.application of the Colonial Sugar Company for an injunction restraining the Commonwealth Sugar Commission from further examining the . company's directors and officials. Tho grounds of the application wcro that tho Sugar Commission's appointment was invalid, and trade rivals would benefit if tho company's processor were mads pnblic through the eommissi on. The Court hold that the Royal Commissions Act, under which (he Commission was appointed, was valid, but by a ma.iorily granted nn injunction reslrninui? flip Sugar Commission from .asking irrelevant questions relating to the internal affairs of tho Colonial Sugar Company, or its transactions or investments outside tho Commonwealth. Tho Court was equally divided with reganl to tho granting of an injunction. Tho Chief Justice, Sir Samnol Griffith, and Mr. Justice Barton favoured «'i injunction, v.-liiio Justices Isaacs and Higgins opposed it. Sir Samuel Griffith exorcised tho right of using a casting vote, and decided for the injunction.