Thomas William Doyle and Others, - Appellants; George Charles Falconer, - Respondent

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date09 November 1866
Date09 November 1866
CourtPrivy Council

English Reports Citation: 16 E.R. 293

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AT DOMINICA.

Thomas William Doyle and Others
-Appellants
George Charles Falconer,-Respondent 1

Mews' Dig. tit. Colony, I. General Principles, 6. Legislatures, II. Particular Colonies, 1. Australia, a. New South Wales; tit. Parliament, A. Internal Management, 2. Powers of. S.C. L.R. 1 P.C. 328; 36 L.J. P.C. 33; 15 W.R. 366. Approved Barton v. Taylor, 1886, 11 App. Cas. 203. See also note to Kielley v. Carson, 1841, 1842, 4 Moo. P.C. 92; and Fenton v. Hampton, 1858. 11 Moo. P.C. 347, 398.

[203] ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AT DOMINICA. THOMAS WILLIAM DOYLE and Others- Appellants; GEORGE CHARLES FALCONER,-Respondent * [Nov. 8, 9, 1866]. The Legislative Assembly of Dominica does not possess the power of punishing a contempt, though committed in its presence and by one of its Members; such authority does not belong to a Colonial House of Assembly by analogy to the Lex et consuetude Parliamenti, which is inherent in the two Houses of Parliament in the United Kingdom, or to a Court of Justice, which is a Court of Record: a Colonial House of Assembly having no judicial functions [4 Moo. P.C. (N.S.), 218]. Where, therefore, a Member of the Lower House of Assembly of Dominica, who had been taken into custody by the Serjeant-at-Arms, and committed to the common gaol, by virtue of the Speaker's warrants, for a contempt committed in the face of the Assembly, brought an action for trespass and false imprisonment, and obtained damages: it was held by the Judicial Committee (affirming the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of the Island) on demurrer to pleas of justification, that the House of Assembly had no such power to commit and punish as had been assumed, and that the Speaker and Members were* liable. The cases of Ki-elley v. Carson (4 Moore's P.C. Cases, 63) and Fen-ton v. Hampton (11 Moore's P.C. Cases, 347) decide conclusively that Legislative Assemblies in the British Colonies have, in the absence of express grant, no power to adjudicate upon, or punish for, contempts when committed beyond their walls [4 Moo. P.C. (N.S.), 217, 218]. Semble, The Speaker's warrants having been issued by virtue of an alleged authority which, if it existed, was a limited one, ought to have shown, on the face of them, that the contempt was committed in the presence of the House, and so fell within the limits of the authority assumed [4 Moo. P.C. (N.S.), 221]. This was an appeal arising out of an action of trespass, for assault and imprisonment, brought by the Respondent, a Member of the House of Assembly [204] of Dominica against the Appellant, the Speaker, and ten Members of the same House. The declaration contained three counts. The first for assaulting the Plaintiff, on the 28th of May, 1863, and seizing and laying hold of him, and forcing and compelling him to go through divers public streets to the common gaol, and there imprisoning him, without any probable cause, for three days; the second was for an assault and false imprisonment, without reasonable cause, for three days; and the third, for a common assault. * Present: Lord Westbury, Sir James William Colvile, and Sir Edward Vaughan Williams. 293 IV MOORE N.S., 205 DOYLE V. FALCONER [1866] To this action the Defendants pleaded-first, the general issue to the whole declaration. Secondly, as to the first count, to the effect, that at the time mentioned in the declaration, the Defendant, Doyle, was Speaker, and the other Defendants, with the Plaintiff, were Members of the Lower House of Assembly of the Island. That on the day in question there was duly had and holden a meeting of the Lower House of Assembly, consisting of the Defendants, the Plaintiff, and a Mr. Dupigny. That at such meeting the Plaintiff, having already spoken by way of objection to a motion, and amendment thereon made by other Members, proceeded to further debate on his objection, contrary to the established rules and practice of the House, whereupon he was called to order by the Speaker. That, nevertheless, the Plaintiff persisted in his speech, and addressed insulting words to the Speaker, which, [205] pursuant to motion, were noted down as follows: " Who the devil are you to call me to order 1 you are a disgrace to the House." That thereupon it was resolved (Mr. Dupigny objecting), that the Plaintiff had been guilty of a high contempt of the House, and that he should be held in such contempt until he should have apologized. That thereupon the Defendant, Doyle, as Speaker called upon the Plaintiff to apologize, who refused to do so, stating that he had said nothing requiring an apology, and continued to address the House. That the Speaker again called on the Plaintiff for an apology, when the Plaintiff replied, " You may tell me that I am in contempt one hundred times, if you like, but I shall speak. You may move it one hundred thousand times. I repeat what I have said. You are a disgrace to the House. You were expelled the House for robbery; the Minutes of 1845 can show it." That the Lower House of Assembly thereupon resolved (Dupigny dissentient), that the Plaintiff, a Member of the House, having, whilst addressing the House, been called to order by the Speaker and House, and he having then addressed to the Speaker the words, " You are a disgrace to this House," and the House of Assembly having called upon him to apologize, and he having refused to do so, was held in contempt, and having, whilst so in contempt, interrupted and obstructed the business before the House, it was thereupon resolved, that the Plaintiff, for his disorderly conduct and contempt of the House, be taken into the custody of the Serjeant at -Arms, and that the Speaker do issue his warrant, committing the Plaintiff to the common gaol during the pleasure of the House. Whereupon the Defendant, Doyle, in pursuance of the resolutions and order aforesaid, and according [206] to the law, custom, and practice theretofore used and practised by the House, and which did always of right belong to the House for the punishment of contempts, and for interruptions and obstructions to the business of the House by its Members, or others, in the presence and during the sittings of the House, and which authority had ever been enjoyed and exercised in like cases by Legislative Assemblies in other parts of the dominions of Her Majesty the Queen, did make and issue his warrant under his hand and name, as such Speaker, directed to the Serjeant-at-Arms, or his Deputy, in and by which warrant reciting, that, " Forasmuch as the House of Assembly had that day adjudged that George Charles Falconer, Esquire (the Plaintiff), had been guilty of a contempt and breach of the privileges of the House, and thereupon ordered that George Charles Falconer should be for the offence committed to the common gaol of the said Island, during the pleasure of the House; it was required that the said Serjeant-at-Arms, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Jeyaretnam JB v Attorney General
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 15 Diciembre 1988
    ...v Carson 4 Moore`s PC Cases 63; 13 ER 225, Fenton v Hampton 11 Moore`s PC Cases 347; 14 ER 727 and Doyle v Falconer IV Moore`s NS 203; 16 ER 293. In disposing of this argument and the three cases cited, the learned judge said (at pp 110-111 of the record of appeal): These three cases relied......
  • Musa v The Attorney General et Al
    • Belize
    • Supreme Court (Belize)
    • 22 Enero 1998
    ...functions. The Speaker is not exempt from suit at the instance of members of an assembly. Kielley v Carson B. E. R. 225 Doyle V Falconer 16 E.R. 293 Jagan V Gajraj (1963) 5 W.I.R. 333 (c) The Attorney General is at all times subject to judicial review. Ryan v Attorney General (d) In the ......
  • Jeyaretnam JB v Attorney General
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 3 Septiembre 1987
    ...legislative assembly of a colony, or settlement, by the introduction of the common law of England into the colony.In Doyle v Falconer 16 ER 293, it was held that the legislative assembly of Dominica did not possess the power of punishing a contempt, though committed in its presence and by o......
  • Herbert Sabaroche The Member for Colihaut Appellant v [1] The Speaker of The House of Assembly First Respondent [2] The Attorney-general of The Commonwealth of Dominica Second Respondent [ECSC]
    • Dominica
    • Court of Appeal (Dominica)
    • 25 Mayo 1999
    ......, when he said that there were others present and he proceeded to name names of those ... . 31 In Thomas William Doyle v George Charles Falconer 1866 ... not repeat the apology required, the appellants were liable. Ritchie J. at page ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT