R v Regos

(1947) 74 CLR 613
[1947] ALR 308
(1947) 21 ALJ 110

---

(Judgment by: Starke J)

R
vRegos

Court:

Judges: Latham CJ
Rich J

Starke JMctiernan J

Legislative References:
Judiciary Act 1903-46 - s 72
Black Marketing Act 1942-46 - The Act
National Security Act 1939 - The Act
Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act 1946 - The Act
Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1941, s 48 - The Act
National Security Act 1939-1943 - The Act

Case References:
R v Edmundson - (1859) 28 LJ MC 213
Anderson v Anderson - (1895) 1 QB 749
Thorman v Dowgate Steamship Co Ltd - (1910) 1 KB 410
Thames & Mersey Marine Insurance Co Ltd v Hamilton, Fraser & Co - (1887) 12 App Cas 484
Tillmanns & Co v SS Knutsford Ltd - (1908) 2 KB 385
Mudie & Co v Strick - (1909) 100 LT 701
SS Magnhild v McIntyre Bros & Co - (1920) 3 KB 321
Kempley v R - [1944] ALR 249

Hearing date: 19 May 1947
Judgment date: 9 June 1947

---

Judgment by:
Starke J

Crown case reserved pursuant to the Judiciary Act 1903-1946 s 72. In the case of R v Ros and Another the first question reserved is: Did the provisions of the Black Marketing Act 1942-1946 authorise the making by the Governor-General in Council of reg 3 (that is Stat Rule 1945, No 114) of the Black Marketing Regulations?

That question should be answered in the affirmative for the reasons which I have stated at large in the case of Cody v J H Nelson Pty Ltd and need not repeat. (at p 628)

The second question is: Ought I to have rejected, by reason of reg 19 of the National Security (Evidence) Regulations, any of the reports of the interviews aforesaid (that is interviews set forth in the case) so far a I admitted them in evidence?

That question should be answered in the negative.

The learned trial Judge heard evidence on the voir dire, and came to the conclusion that the statements contained in the reports admitted in evidence were voluntary and not the result of any requirement pursuant to the provisions of reg 17 of the National Security (Prices) Regulations or of any obligation imposed by those Regulations, and consequently not within the protection given by reg 19 of the National Security (Evidence) Regulations. The fact found by the trial Judge and stated in the case is decisive unless it can be established that there is no evidence to support the finding. But the Court is bound by the case and by the facts and findings therein stated. And facts so stated afford ample evidence to support the conclusion reached by the trial Judge which is stated in the case.