George Dill, - Appellant; The Hon. Sir Francis Murphy, Knt., and William George Palmer, - Respondents
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 02 February 1864 |
| Date | 02 February 1864 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 15 E.R. 784
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE COLONY OF VICTORIA.
Mews' Dig. tit, Colony, I. General Principles, 6. Legislatures; tit. Parliament, A. 4. S.C. 10 Jur. (N.S.) 549; 10 L.T. 170; 12 W.R. 491. See Doyle v. Falconer, 1866, L.R. 1 P.C. 341; 4 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 203; Speaker of Legislative Assembly of Victoria v. Glass, 1871, L.R. 3 P.C. 571; 7 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 449; and note to Fenton v. Hampton, 11 Moo. P.C. 397.
[487] ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE COLONY OF VICTORIA. GEORGE DILL,-Appellant; The Hon. Sir FRANCIS MURPHY, Knt, and WILLIAM GEORGE FALMER,,-Respondents * [Feb. 2, 1864]. Privilege of the Legislative Council and Assembly of Victoria, New South Wales, to commit for contempt. The Legislative Assembly of Victoria was constituted by the Colonial Act of 1854, which Act was ratified and set out in the schedule to the Imperial Act of Parliament, 18th and 19th Viet, c. 55. By sec. 35 of the Act of 1854, the Legislature of Victoria is empowered to " define " the privileges, immunities, and powers, to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Council and Assembly, and by the Members thereof respectively. In pursuance of this power, the Colonial Legislature by an Act, 20th Viet., No. I., enacted that the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly of Victoria, respectively, and the Committees and Members thereof respectively, should hold, enjoy, and exercise such and the like privileges, immunities, and powers as, at the time of the passing of the Imperial Act 18th and 19th Viet. c. 55, were held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the Committees and Members thereof. Held by the Judicial Committee: - First, that this enactment had properly defined these privileges and sufficiently exercised the power delegated to the Local Legislature [1 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 514]; and Second, that the privilege of arrest for contempt was rightly exercised by the Legislative Assembly of Victoria under that Act [1 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 515]. This was an action to recover damages for assault and false imprisonment. The Appellant, the Plaintiff, was the printer and publisher of the Argus newspaper, in the Colony [488] of Victoria. The Respondent, Sir Francis Murphy, was the Speaker, and the other Respondent, Palmer, the Serjeant-at-Arms of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria. The Legislative Assembly of Victoria was constituted by an Act set forth in the 1st schedule to the Imperial Statute, 18th and 19th Viet., c. 55, by which it was enacted, among other things, by section 1, that there should be established in Victoria, instead of the Legislative Council then subsisting, one Legislative Council and one Legislative Assembly, to be severally constituted in the manner thereinafter provided, and that Her Majesty should have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Council and Assembly, to make laws in and for Victoria in all cases whatsoever; and by section 35, it was provided, that it should be lawful for the Legislature for Victoria, by any Act or Acts, to define the privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Council and Assembly, and by the members thereof respectively, provided that no such privileges, immunities, or powers should exceed * Present: Lord Cranworth, Lord Chelmsford, the Lord Justice Knight Bruce, and the Lord Justice Turner. 784 DILL V. MURPHY [1864] I MOORE N.S., 489 those then held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament, or the members thereof. This Act came into force in Victoria, on the 23rd of November, 1855. By an Act, the 20th Viet. No. 1, passed in the first Colonial Parliament held under the above Statute, called " The Constitution Act," it was enacted, that the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly of Victoria respectively, and the Committees and Members thereof respectively, should hold, enjoy, and exercise such and the like privileges, [489] immunities, and powers as, at the time of the passing of the " Constitution Act" were held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the Committees and Members thereof, so, far as the same were not inconsistent with the " Constitution Act "; whether such privileges, immunities, or powers were so held, possessed, or enjoyed by custom, Statute, or otherwise. By the same Act, printed copies of the Journals of the House of Commons were made prima facie evidence upon any inquiry touching the privileges, immunities, and powers of the said Council or Assembly, or of any Committee or member thereof respectively. This Act received the Koyal assent on the 25th of February, 1857. On the 4th of April, 1862, the Appellant printed and published a number of the Argus newspaper, containing an article upon the subject of the Police Committee of the Legislative Assembly, with particular reference to one William Frazer, a member of that Assembly; and on the same day the Assembly resolved,-" That the article contained in the Argus of this day, on the subject of the Police Committee, and more particularly in reference to Mr. Frazer, is a scandalous breach of the privileges of this House; " and the Assembly ordered,-" That the said George Dill do attend this House on Wednesday next." The Appellant had notice of this order, but paid no attention to it, and did not attend the House of Assembly; and on that day the Assembly resolved,-" That George Dill having been ordered to attend this House this day, and not attending in obedience [490] to such order, is guilty of a contempt, and that he be sent for in the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly." The Speaker accordingly issued his warrant to the Serjeant-at-Arms, and on the 29th of April, 1862, the Appellant was brought to the Bar of the House of Assembly by the Serjeant-at-Arms, and after he had been examined by the Speaker, the House resolved,-" That the said George Dill, having been guilty of a contempt of this House, be, for his said offence, committed to the Custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms of the Legislative Assembly, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly." The Appellant was then again examined by the Speaker, and admitted the publication by him of the Argus containing the article complained of, whereupon the House resolved,-" That the said George Dill, having published in the said Argus newspaper the said libellous article, is guilty of a contempt and breach of the privileges of this House, and that he be for his said offence committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms of the Legislative Assembly, and be kept in such custody for the space of one calendar month, unless the House shall sooner order his discharge, or unless the said Parliament of Victoria be sooner prorogued, or unless the said Legislative Assembly be sooner dissolved, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly." The warrants were issued accordingly, and the Appellant was, under the last of such warrants, detained in the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. [491] The first and third of these warrants set forth at length the alleged libellous article. On the 30th of April, 1862, a writ of Habeas corpus, addressed to the Serjeant-at-Arms, was issued out of the Supreme Court for the Colony of Victoria, at the instance of the Appellant. The Serjeant-at-Arms, by the direction of the Legislative Assembly, made a formal return to the writ, to the effect, that he took the body of the Appellant by virtue of a certain warrant under the hand and seal of Mr. Speaker, by the authority of the Legislative Assembly, for a contempt and breach of privilege of the House, and that he held the body of the Appellant by virtue of two several warrants, one of which was under the hand, and the other of which was under the hand and seal, of the Speaker, and by the authority of the Legislative Assembly. 785 I MOORE N.S., 492 DILL V. MURPHY [1864] Upon the return of the writ, the right of the Legislative Assembly to imprison the Appellant under the warrants was argued in Chambers, before Mr. Justice Chapman, one of the Judges of the Supreme Court, at Victoria, who had issued the writ of Habeas corpus, assisted by the Chief Justice and two other Judges of the same Court. On the 7th of May, 1862, Mr. Justice Chapman delivered his judgment, and remanded the Appellant back to custody. The Appellant was subsequently released from custody by the order of the Legislative Assembly, upon payment of certain fees to the Sergeant-at-Arms. The Appellant then commenced an action in the Supreme Court against the Respondents for assault and imprisonment. The declaration was in the usual form for an assault and false imprisonment. [492] The Respondents pleaded to the action three pleas. The first plea stated, in substance, that by virtue of the Constitution Statute and of the Colonial Statute, 20th Viet. No. 1, a Parliament of Victoria was sitting at the Parliament House in Melbourne, and a Select Committee of the Legislative Assembly, duly appointed to inquire into certain matters, was also sitting, and that the Defendant, Sir Francis Murphy, was a Member and Speaker of the Assembly, and that the Defendant, Palmer, was the Serjeant-at-Arms attending the Assembly; and that by force of the Statutes aforesaid, the privileges and powers of the Legislative Assembly were the same as those which were held, exercised, and enjoyed by the Commons House of the Imperial Parliament at the time of the passing of the Constitution Act: and that one of those privileges and powers was, that of ordering the attendance at the bar of the House of any person whom the said House might consider it necessary to examine in respect of any matter which was there under discussion ; and, in the event of the wilful disobedience and contempt of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jeyaretnam JB v Attorney General
...3(1) of the Act had been the subject of judicial interpretation more than a hundred years ago in the case of Dill v Murphy 1 Moore NS 487; 15 ER 784. There, the legislative assembly of Victoria was constituted by the Colonial Act 1854 which was ratified and set out in the Schedule to the Im......
-
Jeyaretnam JB v Attorney General
...extraordinary privileges of this kind, when regularly acquired, will be duly recognized here, is shown by the recent case of Dill v Murphy 15 ER 784. In Dill v Murphy 15 ER 784, the legislative assembly of Victoria was constituted by the Colonial Act of 1854, which Act was ratified and set ......
-
BDR21 v Australian Broadcasting Corporation
...Justice Commission v Parliamentary Criminal Justice Commission [2001] QCA 218; [2002] 2 Qd R 8 Dill v Murphy (1864) 1 Moo PC (NS) 487; 15 ER 784 Fairfax v Commissioner of Taxation (1965) 114 CLR 1 Hammond v The Commonwealth [1982] HCA 42; 152 CLR 188 Jabbcorp (NSW) Pty Ltd v Strathfield Gol......
-
Jeyaretnam JB v Attorney General
...3(1) of the Act had been the subject of judicial interpretation more than a hundred years ago in the case of Dill v Murphy 1 Moore NS 487; 15 ER 784. There, the legislative assembly of Victoria was constituted by the Colonial Act 1854 which was ratified and set out in the Schedule to the Im......
-
Spreading the word': Exploring The Transmission of Legal Information Through the British Empire
...14 ER at 727 113 In re Dill (1862) 1 W & W (L) 171. The litigation later went to the Privy Council; Dill v Murphy (1864) 1 Moo PC (NS) 487; 15 ER 784. 114 Carole Woods, “Gray, Moses Wilson (1813 - 1875)”, Australian Dictionary of Biography , Vol 4 ( Melbourne University Press, 1972), at 287......