Adelaide Company of Jehovah's Witnesses v Commonwealth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Adelaide Company of Jehovah's Witnesses v Commonwealth | |
 |
|
| High Court of Australia | |
| Full case name | Adelaide Company of Jehovah's Witnesses Inc v The Commonwealth of Australia |
|---|---|
| Date decided | June 14, 1943 |
| Citations | (1943) 67 CLR 116, [1943] HCA 12 |
| Judges sitting | Latham CJ, Rich, Starke, McTiernan & Williams JJ |
| Case history | |
| Prior actions: | none |
| Subsequent actions: | none |
| Case opinions | |
| (5:0) the National Security (Subversive Associations) Regulations did not contravene section 116 of the Australian Constitution (per curiam) (5:0) the power under the regulations to seize any building containing property connected to a subversive association was beyond the Commonwealth's defence powers under s51(vi) of the Constitution (per curiam) | |
Adelaide Company of Jehovah's Witnesses Inc v Commonwealth (also known as the Jehovah's Witnesses case) was an important court case decided in the High Court of Australia on June 14, 1943.
In January 1941, acting pursuant to the National Security (Subversive Organisations) Regulations 1940, the Commonwealth Government declared the Jehovah's Witnesses to be 'prejudicial to the defence of the Commonwealth' and to the 'efficient prosecution of the war'. Police immediately occupied premises of the organisation.
In September 1941, the Jehovah's Witnesses applied to the High Court for an injunction to restrain the Commonwealth from further trespassing on their premises, and seeking damages.
The Jehovah's Witnesses argued that the regulations contravened the express constitutional protections for freedom from religious discrimination which they said was contained in section 116 of the Constitution, which provides that
- "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth".
This was only the second case to consider section 116. The first had been Krygger v Williams (1912). In that case, the protections afforded by section 116 had been defined very narrowly.
The Court unanimously held that the National Security (Subversive Organisations) Regulations 1940 did not infringe against section 116.
Despite these findings on section 116, the Jehovah's Witnesses were ultimately successful in their challenge to the regulations, on the ground that they exceeded the scope of the Commonwealth's defence power in section 51(vi) of the Constitution.
[edit] See also
 |
This article does not cite any references or sources. (August 2007) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. |
