Jones v. Commonwealth [No. 2]1
| DOI | 10.1177/0067205X6500100213 |
| Published date | 01 June 1965 |
| Date | 01 June 1965 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
342
Federal Law Review [VOLUME 1
The Court
replied-
If
this were so, every officer
of
one
of
the Queen's ships might with
impunity abandon the ship whenever he pleased.
It
is
obvious
that
such aconstruction would be fatal to the Act.9
It
will be noted, first,
that
the question before the Court was one
of
'statutory interpretation and thus
not
relevant, save for dicta,
to
the
present case. Secondly, the case showed
that
the reason for the Court's
,decision was that it could
not
admit
that
an officer can simply leave
his ship and
not
return. This
is
for obvious reasons. However when
,one
compares this with section
17
(1)
there
is
the marked difference
that
in that section aperiod
of
three months
is
provided for as requisite
notice except during time
of
war.
From
this it is possible that the Court
in
the instant case could have given meaning to the specification
of
three
months notice (which they did not) by holding that this period is provided
for areplacement to be posted.
It
would seem reasonable to say
that
the legislature did not intend an officer to leave his post unattended,
but
when aperiod
of
notice is specified for his resignation the meaning
would seem to be obvious:
to
provide aperiod during which the adminis-
tration could
fill
the
office
that is vacated by
an
officer's resignation.
In
conclusion
it
may be said
that
the decision
of
the Court in this case
Tendered
part
at
least
of
section
17
(1)
completely meaningless, and
would thus appear
to
be inadequate,
if
not
incorrect. Section
17
(1)
·can be given ameaning
that
is consistent with the words used; and
this would seem to be
that
in
peace time
an
officer can resign his com-
mission by giving three months notice,
but
that in wartime he cannot.
J.
B. THYNNE
JONES v. COMMONWEALTH [No.
2]1
,Constitutional
law-Post
and telegraph power-Australian Broad-
casting Commission-Television services
Constitutional law-Acquisition
power-Form
of
notice
of
acquisition.
The plaintiff sought adeclaration
of
invalidity in respect
of
apurported
'acquisition
of
land by the Commonwealth by notice
of
acquisition under
the Lands Acquisition Act 1955-1957 (Cth). The notice
of
acquisition
had been published in the Commonwealth Gazette dated
15
October
1963
and stated the purpose
of
the acquisition as being
'the
provision
of
broadcasting and television studios and
offices
for the Australian Broad-
,casting Commission
in
accordance with the Broadcasting and Television
Act 1942-1962 '. The High Court had, in an earlier case, held, in relation
9(1887)
19
Q.B.D. 13, 17.
1(1964-1965)
38
A.L.J.R. 376. High
Court
of
Australia; Barwick C.J., McTiernan,
Kitto, Taylor, Menzies, Windeyer
and
Owen JJ.
To continue reading
Request your trial