Crouch v Ozanne [1910] HCA 49

Crouch v Ozanne [1910] HCA 49 - HCA 1910 case summary — Zoe

[22]

versation on that point is immaterial - he and Dorgan were goi away when Miss Connors met them at the gate. I shall from the evidence what took place according to Mrs. Zagabria. "Mr. Dorgan introduced Maggie Connors to Mr. Ozanne, Mr. Ozanne said 'Miss Connors, if you vote for me, when I in I will give you a new silk dress. 'There was no more sai my presence by either Mr. Dorgan or Mr. Ozanne. Ma; Connors laughed and said 'You're the one, or something lik that. (Lo His Honor). He did not promise me a silk dr Mr. Ozanne passed no remark to me. (To Mr. McArthur). that I heard was about the silk dress. They went away togetl (To His Honor). I really thought he meant it at the time. thought he was serious." Maggie Connors is called and she admits there was sucl conversation, but she says it did not take place in Mrs. Zagabi a presence at all. She gives very much the same account of i except, she says, it was understood by her, and intended by Ozanne, as a joke. When one considers the circumstances un which this supposed bribe was offered it seems to me to be al shocking to common sense to suppose anyone could take incident seriously. I have no doubt whatever it was merely: joke, and was understood by both parties to be so, and it is to be regretted that a serious charge of bribery should be brou, before this Court to be solemnly tried upon such an exceeding] flimsy ground. I pass now to the other charges, and in regard to all of them must be satisfied of two things before I can find them estab- lished. I must be satisfied in the first place that the illegal tice or irregularity took place, and in the next place I must b satisfied that each irregularity complained of was, or the whole of them together were, such as to be likely to affect the result of th election. The first important fact is that in this election th respondent Ozanne had a majority of 1,645. It must be sho therefore that these irregularities or illegal practices were lik to affect that majority. There is no doubt that in some cases irregularities were proved ; in some cases the proof failed. I not think it necessary to go into the details. Assuming ev

[35]

refused to permit the serutineers of the petitioner to go ina out of the booths in the discharge of their ordinary duti serutineers. It is well known that the duty of a scrutineer look after the interests of the candidate both inside and ou the building. It appears that at three of the polling boot Barwon, Geelong and Geelong West - the presiding officers to it into their heads to prevent scrutineers from going in an of the building. They took the view that a scrutineer must eit remain outside the building altogether or inside the buik altogether, that if he elected to stay inside the building he stay there the whole time, and if he once went outsid building he must stay out. I need hardly say that such act on the part of these officers was an absolutely unwarran' interference with the discharge of the duties of the scruti Apparently the presiding officers acted upon a misinterpretat of No. 7 of the instructions issued by the Electoral Departm on 15th January 1910. The last sentence of that partie instruction is somewhat ambiguously worded "The presid officer will see that scrutineers do not communicate with pei s¢ other than officers inside the polling booth." The meai of that to any person who understands scrutineers' duti obviously that the scrutineer inside the polling booth will be allowed to communicate with persons other than offi ia But unfortunately the words used are open to the reading # the presiding officer will see that the scrutineers do not municate with persons other than the officials inside the p booth. No person who understood the duties of a scrutineer read these rules with the most reasonable allowance of comn sense could make any mistake about the meaning of them, | there was undoubtedly an opening for mistake to persons in the habit of interpreting documents and disposed to tal narrow view. I think what has happened at this elect ought to be a warning to those responsible for the issue electoral rules to be exceedingly careful to see that they clearly worded and to remember that they are intended to read, not only by persons who are in the habit of interpret documents and who know all the duties of presiding officers

[36]

to interpreting documents, who may not know the f a serutineer, and who may have no one at hand m they can consult in a difficulty. I say this in justice she presiding officers themselves. If their conduct had been tely wanton they would be subject to very severe censure. zy made a mistake in interpreting the rule because the rule f is unfortunately not as clear as it might be. However may be, at those three polling places the presiding officers up that position, and they practically put the scrutineers of petitioner in the position of having to elect whether they give up the discharge of their duties outside altogether nd remain inside, or whether they would elect to go outside and lect their duties inside the polling booth. Of that there is no bt, and I come to the conclusion that two scrutineers at least each of these places were prevented from exercising their ies in looking after Mr. Crouch's interests during the day in he polling booth, and also were prevented from taking the part h they ought to be allowed to take in the scrutiny. There 0 doubt that this interference with his scrutineers must have cted Mr. Crouch's interests. To what extent? There is no idence before me to indicate to what extent, if at all, the result of he election was affected by the irregularity, failure or error in

the discharge of their duty by the returning officers. There wre eighteen polling places and out of those it was only in the three places complained of that apparently this irregularity took place. Apparently Mr. Ozanne's scrutineers elected to remain but unfortunately at these three places scrutineers of the etitioner elected to remain out. The evidence of Mr. Williams 'is that as soon as he heard of the difficulty - he seems to have heard of it somewhere about ten o'clock in the morning - he set about remedying it by giving instructions to the presiding officers that they had no right whatever to prevent the mere ingress and egress of scrutineers. There is no evidence - one would not expect it in the petitioner's case - that that was communicated to both sides. All we know is that Mr. Crouch did not hear about it. Mr. Crouch says he endeavoured to find Mr. Williams, but was not able to see him. Apparently that was not com-

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (48 paragraphs)

in a . . . Cont Je Petition dismissed with costs, °°

Cited By (1)