The Honourable Robert Ian Viner & Ors v Australian Building Construction Employees & Builders Labourers Federation & Ors [1982] FCA 81

Federal Court of Australia|1982-07-01|Before: Keely J

Contempt of Court - Nature of contempt committed out of

court - whether union "bans" and statements by union officials

constitute criminal contempt by interfering with the administ-

Evidence - admissibility of statements made during a conference

held in private under s.27 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act

considerations of public policy - scope of "without prejudice"

Industrial Law - jurisdiction of the Arbitration Commission to direct attendance at a conference - whether "industrial dispute"

THE HONOURABLE ROBERT IAN VINER (who sues as the Minister of State For Industrial Relations) and OTHERS v. THE AUSTRALIAN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CMPLOYEES' AND BUILDERS LABOURERS' FEDERATION: Re CRIMINAL CONTEMPT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA INDUSTRIAL DIVISION VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY BETWEEN:

THE HONOURABLE ROBERT IAN - VINER (WHO SUES AS THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS )

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE STATE OF VICTORIA

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

THE MASTER BUILDERS' FEDERATION OF AUSTRALIA INCORPORATED

THE MASTER BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

ee eee nt rekeed mata -ecunleeatdatontnyroai oie Haas

ag NaH APT MS MIU tm A URL RIE RET AO TN SRNR TER SD HO ERD Srwt - ~

THE MASTER BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (INCORPORATED }

THE MASTER BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (UNION OF EMPLOYERS ) PERTH

THE AUSTRALIAN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYEES ' AND BUILDERS LABOURERS ' FEDERATION

THE HONOURABLE ROBERT IAN VINER (WHO SUES AS THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR INDUSTRIAL RELATIIONS )

~~ o- ee ae et it ee ee et ne eee pena Mia peer Laman ng eS

THE MASTER BUILDERS' FEDERATION OF AUSTRALIA INCORPORATED

THE MASTER BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

THE MASTER BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (INCORPORATED )

MASTER BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

THE MASTER BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (UNION OF EMPLOYERS) PERTH

s CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYEES" AND BUILDERS LABOURERS ' FEDERATION

7 rete grr reagprer pe ett re eer er a I TTR TT LR I PR RL RI a a

'a . i

ch aaah lteter ata - a ait acene stnanin nent leh detent ate nat ee '

The Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders'

Labourers Federation (the Federation) is registered as an

Organization of employees under the Conciliation and

Robert Ian Viner, as the (Commmonwealth) Minister of State

for Industrial Relations (the first-named applicant) together

with the State of Victoria and the State of Western

Australia instituted proceedings in this Court seeking an

order pursuant to s.143 of the Act directing the Industrial

Registrar to cancel the registration of the Federation (the

Construction Contractors, the Master Builders' Federation of

Australia Incorporated, and the Master Builders' Associations

Capital Territory and Perth, were added as applicants in the

en dem ent ater eens ten ent antes Net ate ne A em tent oA 5. Geregistration proceedings. The applicants so added will be referred to as the employer body applicants. By their statement of claim, amended pursuant to orders made on 16 October, 1981 and 4 December, 1981, the applicants rely upon a number of grounds specified in s.143(1) of the Act including the grounds specified in paragraphs (c),°(h), (3)

_ On 21 April, 1982 notice was given by the first~named applicant and the employer body applicants that they (the present applicants) would move the Court for orders punishing for contempt of court the Federation, Norman L. Gallagher, Patrick Donnelly, Philip Tate, B. Boyd and Martin Bingham. Of those respondents to the notice of motion, only the Federation is a party to the deregistration Proceedings.

In his final address Mr. Dowling, of Queen's Counsel, on behalf of the present applicants, conceded that on the evidence before the Court Philip Tate could not be found

guilty of contempt of court. Accordingly, the motion in

contempts is conferred by s.31l of the Federal Court of

Australia Act 1976 which includes the following provision :

"31.(1) Subject to any other Act, the Court has the same power to punish contempts of its power and authority aS 1S possessed by the High Court in

2 pet rere en remem pe TT Re A RL RS RT A cceeaenemmenant a ne Ne et ee et aera sae - . ae ted ee nee en end she meet da Oe a Fe,

respect of contempts of the High Court and, where the contempt relates to the exercise of jurisdiction in a Division of the Court, the jurisdiction to punish that contempt shall be exercised in that Division of the Court."

"24. The High Court shall have the same power to punish contempts of its power and authority as is possessed at the commencement of this Act by the Supreme Court of Judicature in England."

The statement of charge required by Order 40 Rule 6

of the Federal Court Rules was in the following terms :

Between the 5th April 1982 and the 21st April 1982 the Respondents have and each of them has committed contempt of the Federal Court of Australia by interference with the course of justice.

(a) On the 5th April 1982 each of the Respondents Donnelly, Tate and Boyd procured stoppages of work by all members of the Respondent Federation employed on building operations being conducted on the following sites:-

(i) 230 Collins Street, Melbourne (1i) Fitzroy North Primary School (iii) Williamstown Primary School

(b) On the 16th April 1982 the Respondent Bingham procured stoppages of work by all members of the Respondent Federation employed on building

operations being conducted on the site of the Aspendale Special Development School.

BAR Tre STENT EMS ORT eeTT aren RUN CR RRR FI RAE Re OE RR NE RT NTN ry . - a

At all material times the building operations on each of the said sites were being conducted by H.M. Keast and Sons Pty. Ltd. ("the company").

At all material times Reginald Keast ("Keast") was the Chairman of the Directors of the company.

At the time of procuring those stoppages of work each of the Respondents, Donnelly, Tate, Boyd and Bingham informed servants or agents of the company that the reason for imposing the stoppages was because of Keast being involved in the present proceedings against the Respondent Federation for the cancellation of its registration as an organization under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 ("the de-registration proceedings").

From the time of the procuring of the stoppages up to the 2ist April 1982 no work was done on

any of the said sites by any member of the Respondent Federation.

The procuring of the stoppages of work and the continuation of those stoppages was brought about by the Respondent Federation or by the Respondent Gallagher, or by the Respondent Donnelly, or by the Respondent Tate, or by the

Respondent Boyd, or by the Respondent Bingham, or each of them.

The Respondent Gallagher has stated that the stoppages of work on the said sites were because of Keast being involved in the de-registration proceedings.

The conduct of and the statements made by each of the respondents had the tendency to and were intended to -

(i) constitute a threat to persons Participating in or supporting the de-registration proceedings, that they would be injured or victimized for so participating or supporting.

(ii) constitute a threat to persons bringing or intending to bring proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against the

SSF ep Tp OT TE ETT TT ITLL AT NAAT I TI A TYE AG AIRE ST IR NEG

Respondent Federation that they would be injured or victimized for so bringing or intending to bring such proceedings. (iii) dissuade persons from giving evidence on behalf of the Applicants in the de-registration proceedings or dissuade

them from giving evidence unfavourable to the Respondent Federation.

(iv) impose pressure on the applicants in order to influence them in the conduct of the de-registration proceedings or to discontinue the said proceedings."

As to sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (i) above it has been said that there can be no greater contempt than to intimidate a witness before he gives his evidence (Attorney-General v Butterworth [1963] 1 Q.B. 696 at p. 719 per Lord Denning M.R.). His Lordship added :-

truth, for fear of the consequences." In the same case (at page 723) Donovan L.J. referred to "frightening intending witnesses from the witness box" and "deterring potential witnesses in future cases", classing both as conduct calculated to interfere with the proper administration of the law in courts of justice. It is also clear that there is interference with the proper administration of justice where a witness is not dissuaded from giving evidence but is dissuaded from giving evidence

Collings & Ors. (1944) 70 C.L.R. 51 at p. 58 and Miller

"Contempt of Court" at p. 131 as to contempt of court

constituted by conduct likely to deter witnesses from giving evidence or to"colour the evidence which they would otherwise

As to sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph (i) above it is clear that such conduct if proved would constitute contempt of court because it would be in violation of the fundamental requirement of justice that all citizens must have the unhindered right to have proceedings in which they are

parties heard and determined in the established courts of

law. (See Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd. [1974] A.C. 273.)

The charges under consideration here were supported by evidence by affidavit and, by leave granted by consent, by other evidence. None of the present respondents gave evidence or called any witnesses. The elements in the charges against each of the present respondents must be established beyond all reasonable doubt. A summary of facts so established is as follows :-

Building operations were being conducted by H.M. Keast & Sons Pty. Ltd. (the company) on building sites at 230 Collins Street, Melbourne; Fitzroy North Primary School; Williamstown Primary School and Aspendale Special Development School. The company employed members of the

= eet ceri Me cL hina La ett poet rtndetan en tt ee tt cae tenn sealant ete or tte ESS

The company is a member of the Master Builders' Association of Victoria, an association of employers registered as an organization under the Act which is a joint applicant in the deregistration proceedings. Mr.Reginald Keast was the chairman of the directors of the company. Until October 1981 he was the president 6f the Master Builders' Federation of Australia and was and is a council member of that federation, positions which he held as the representative of the Master Builders' Association of Victoria in which body he was and is a councillor. The respondent Gallagher was both the general secretary of the Federation and the secretary of its Victorian branch during the period from 5 April, 1982 to 21 April, 1982. Each of the other four named respondents to the notice of motion was an organizer of the Federation. The respondent Federation on or before 5 April, 1982 made a decision to "ban" work by builders' labourers on building sites at which the company was conducting building operations. The evidence does not disclose the precise terms of the decision nor the identity of the body or person within the Federation which or who made the decision. The ban was still in force on 16 April,

1982 but by 27 April, 1982 had been "totally lifted".

SEP ES FE TE en TE EO FL et eT AR a a - at nen - ----.

ll. It appeared to be accepted by the applicants that it was lifted on 21 April, 1982. The evidence does not disclose the identity of the body or person which or who lifted the ban.

On the evening of 5 April, 1982 the respondent Gallagher told Mr. Ainsworth, the Chief Industrial Reporter fox the Sun News Pictorial who had held that position for approximately three years, that the bans were imposed "because an executive of the company, Mr. Reg Keast, was the driving force behind the move to de-register the Federation". The respondent Gallagher also said to him

that "We are going to repay a few debts. It will be tit

(a) At approximately 10.30 a.m. on 5 April, 1982 the respondent Boyd called at the 230 Collins Street, Meibourne building site and had a meeting of the members of the Federation employed on that site. Approximately 15 minutes later he informed the company's site foreman that all members of the Federation employed on the site were being sent home and that the reason for the union's action was that the Federation, through a very reliable contact, had been told that the company was largely responsible for the deregistration proceedings. The three members of the Federation employed on the site by the company left the site about thirty

Serena a ls al at li ele ool Relea Coenen! ~ tor ow ene me - ~ we eee or BI

information which he received on 5 April, 1982 from site foremen on this site, Mr. Keast instructed the Master Builders' Association of Victoria to notify an industrial dispute to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission (the

On the same day a person whose identity was not established by the evidence but who was admitted by the Federation in other proceedings to have been an organizer of the Federation, called at the Fitzroy North Primary School site and told the company's site foreman that he had instructed the members of the Federation on site to leave the job because the Company was the main instigator in trying to get the Federation deregistered. The evidence did not establish that any stoppage of work at that site took place on that day.

On the same day at approximately 2.00 p.m. the respondent Donnelly called at the Williamstown Primary School site and told the company's site foreman that the Pederation had placed a black ban on jobs being carried out by the company and that the ban had been imposed because the company was the main instigator in the deregistration proceedings against the Federation. The site foreman (Mr. Wilkins) in his affidavit said that he

members of the Federation on the site "to the effect that no productive work was to be done" by them. However, under cross-examination by Mr. Ryan, of Queen's Counsel, on behalf of all the respondents, he agreed that Mr. Donnelly did not stop them finishing the work remaining to, be done_ by them, that they left the site because there was no more work for them to do and that they would have left the site at that time "whether or not Mr. Donnelly had spoken to them". He said that it was

a matter for future arrangement between the company and the sub-contractor as to when he and his employees came back to the site to do more work and that no-one on behalf of the company made any request for the sub-contractor to return to work on

On 16 April, 1982 the respondent Bingham called at the Aspendale Special Development School site, introduced himself to the company's site foreman as a Federation organizer and said "I suppose you have been expecting me". Under cross-examination the site foreman agreed that the latter remark apparently was made "because by that time .. it was common knowledge that the Federation had placed a ban on" the company. Mr. Bingham then said "I am

here to send the labourers home" and, in reply to a

Rarer Tae oe nee eeeiaineanihanndhaeiaaminsehaiea andeanmnmeeiaeme mama nesnemenaandaaaienheeinetemammnammenenmenaenenmennmetameammeenan -

question, that it was because of H.M. Keast and Sons' involvement in the deregistration proceedings. He addressed a meeting of the five builders' labourers on the site and after the meeting told the site foreman that the labourers were going home. The labourers left -the site shortly afterwards, after packing away tools, and the respondent Bingham then left the site. The respondent Boyd appeared on behalf of the Federation before the Arbitration Commission on 8 April, 1982 in a hearing related to the notification by the Master Builders' Association of Victoria of the abovementioned events when Federation organizers on 5 April, 1982 called at the company's building sites at 230 Collins Street, Melbourne; Fitzroy North Primary School and Williamstown Primary School. In a public hearing in the presence of the representative of the Master Builders' Association of Victoria and the company, Mr. Boyd stated that "if that is the way the employers want to play it, well, we will play it our way «.- and we believe we will take the battle right back to the employer. We have information, or our secretary has, that H.M. Keasts are involved deeply in those Matters (the deregistration proceedings and the Royal

Commission) and we are willing to take the fight right back to them", He also stated that the Federation

wished that the company would meet with the secretary

YL centat Nae heen eterna ama ate ie ht es et me ete aticd teand mente a en en tel imeianenabis Ant tl 8 ST

(the respondent Gallagher) and that "1f Keasts will meet our secretary to talk out the information the union has, then we might view the bans in a different light". He said that he was carrying out the directions of the secretary and the union executive; he also stated that he was "in no position to lift (the bans) at this stage" but that if the company contacted the secretary and arranged a meeting the secretary "might be amenable to" lifting the bans.

On 14 April, 1982 the matter again came before the Arbitration Commission, when the respondent Gallagher

and Mr. Boyd represented the Federation. The parties were asked whether they had anything further to add to what had been said during the proceedings on 8 April but neither party wished to make any further statements, and the matter was then adjourned into conference. During

that conference Mr. Gallagher said, amongst other things

(a) That since Mr. Reginald Keast was involved on the employers' committees that instigated the deregistration proceedings against the union and the Royal Commission, the company was the first on

the union's list. (b) That on the basis of his knowledge of the employers in the building industry, the company would not get

Ne a elem ae re a sl rae Re petra nts rain ea i ota AEF ctl PNR Scents em et oe wer aean dtc, ds

(c) That he expected his actions would achieve a withdrawal of support by the Master Builders' Associations throughout Australia for the deregistration proceedings against the Federation and, further, the payment of fines which had been imposed on members of the federation with. respect_

As to paragraph 9 above, Mr. Ryan objected to evidence as to what was said in the conference in the Arbitration Commission on 14 April, 1982, but the evidence was admitted. Mr. Ryan submitted that the evidence was not admissible because the conference was a compulsory conference under s.27 of the Act and was held in private (s.27(6)). He submitted that the scheme of s.27 of the Act contained a.very strong implication that any statements made in such a conference, when it is held in private, are statements of their nature without prejudice or are privileged on some other analogous basis. I do not consider that the Act

'manifests any intention of prohibiting the calling of such evidence in contempt of court proceedings in this court - cp. s.30(4) of the Act which expressly prohibits the calling of such evidence in "arbitration proceedings under this Act" unless the parties otherwise agree. In this connection Mr. Dowling also relied upon the contrast between the provisions

De etait eena mnteteee pears ee ert nn me ae an antec AON LD ek ti re

Mr. Ryan also sought to rely upon public policy considerations, citing Home Office v Harman [1981] Q.B. 534. I am quite unable to accept that public policy requires that in contempt of court proceedings evidence as to the making of the statements alleged to constitute the contempt of ,court is

inadmissible on the ground that the statements were made in conference, The following extract from Cross on Evidence

(Second Australian Edition) is relevant to the submission

relating to without prejudice statements. (p.287) :-

"11.43 It seems to follow from the nature of the without-prejudice privilege, that the communication which is made by one party to another in an endeavour to settle the dispute between them, 1s privileged only as between those parties and their agents, and only in respect of that dispute: Barden v Barden (1921) 21 S.R. (N.S.W.) 588. The privilege does not extend to statements of fact made in the course of without-prejudice negotiations, if such Statements have no reference at all to the dispute between the parties, as where one of them casually admits that a statement 1s in his handwriting

the statements of fact are not reasonably incidental to those negotiations: Field v Commissioner for

I also accept the argument advanced by Mr. Dowling that "there is no confidence as to the disclosure of

iniquity" - Gartside v Outram (856) 27 L.J. Ch. 113, 114.

That case was cited in British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd. (to be reported in [1981] A.C. 1096) [1980] 3

W.L.R. 774 at p. 851 by Lord Fraser, who, as to the meaning

of "iniquity", cited with approval the following passage from Lord Denning M.R. in Initial Services Ltd. v Putterill [1968]

misdeeds, both those actually committed as well as those in contemplation, provided always - and -this is essential - that the disclosure is justified in the public interest."

establish that Mr.Gallagher was ever validly directed under s.27 of the Act to attend the conference. The Arbitration Commission's power to call a conference under s.27(1) of the Act is a power which only exists for "the purposes of the performance of (its) functions in respect of an industrial dispute" and an industrial dispute must be a "dispute as to industrial matters which extends beyond the limits of any one State". On the evidence before this court the alleged "industrial dispute" did not extend "beyond the limits of any one State"; further, it was plainly not a dispute as to "industrial matters" within the meaning of the Act. In

Australian Federation of Air Pilots v Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal (1968) 119 C.L.R. 16 at p. 39 Taylor J

"It is perhaps necessary to observe once again that it is not the industrial action taken to enforce a demand that constitutes an industrial dispute; an industrial dispute is constituted by the rejection of a demand relating to an industrial matter or Matters made by one side upon the other. If,

however, the demand does not relate to an industrial matter there is no industrial dispute even though industrial action is taken to enforce the demand (Reg. v. Foster; Ex parte Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association (1956) 94 C.L.R. 614)"

"Consequently a power to settle disputes can never validly be exercised to deal with the disruption or threat of disruption as if it were itself a dispute

to be settled. .... These are trite propositions in industrial law."

The question of the Arbitration Commission's jurisdiction was raised by the court during Mr. Ryan's submissions and was the subject of submissions by him. The applicants expressly refrained from challenging the validity of any direction to Mr. Gallagher to attend the conference on 14 April, 1982. Mr. Dowling on their behalf, referred to possible embarrassment by reason of the fact that the Master Builders' Association of Victoria, one of the present applicants, had notified the alleged industrial dispute to the Arbitration Commission and said, "It would be our submission, were we free to make it, that this is a matter not only that lacks interstateness, but also is not a dispute concerning an industrial matter within the definition of the Act, but that is not what I am presently submitting to your Honour". However having regard to the "trite propositions in

industrial law" to which Kitto J has referred (supra), I do

= 2 Re EC RE ere erg perme ene ee crete TAAL AE A NA ONT AREA BTA ER TES A IRE RS =

: . bd Be IAEA eet matte Site dete tm nly aetna a oe - ae et ay hem ae ea ate en a aah nti med" amo a

not consider that this court in hearing contempt charges can simply assume that the Arbitration Commission had jurisdiction. In my opinion the evidence before this court, including the verified transcript of the proceedings before

the Arbitration Commission on 8 April, 1982, clearly

establishes that the Arbitration Commission, had no jurisdiction in the matter and accordingly no power to direct the attendance of persons at a conference under s.27. Because of this and of the other reasons given, Mr. Ryan's

objection to the admissibility of the statements made on 14

The Federation's conduct, as established by the evidence, included its decision to impose a ban on the work being performed at the company's building sites, its action in sending its organizers to those building sites for the purpose of bringing about the cessation of work at those sites, the statements on its behalf made by Mr. Boyd on 8 April, 1982 and the statements on its behalf made by Mr. Gallagher on 14 April, 1982, to which I have already referred. Those statements were made in the presence of the representative of the Master Builders' Association of

On all the evidence I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Federation's conduct was partly for

the purpose of dissuading persons from giving evidence on

8 TTR err renrseery - - - ~ rn oo eee omens = ee a0 ren: Teen epee ennai mes ea

behalf of the applicants in the deregistration proceedings or, if it failed in that purpose, of dissuading them from giving evidence unfavourable to the Federation and also Partly for the purpose of inducing those Master Builders' Associations which are applicants in the deregistration proceedings to discontinue as applicants in the said proceedings. I also am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, viewed objectively, the Federation's conduct had the tendency to so dissuade persons who are potential witnesses and also the tendency to induce the Master Builders' Associations to discontinue as applicants. Accordingly, I find that the Federation has committed contempt of the Federal Court of Australia by interfering with the course of

I also am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the statements by the respondent Gallagher on 14 April, 1982, to which I have already referred, and which were made in the presence of the representative of the Master Builders' Assocation of Victoria and the company were made by him partly for the purpose of dissuading persons from giving evidence on behalf of the applicants in the deregistration proceedings or, 1f he failed in that purpose, dissuading them from giving evidence unfavourable to the Federation and also partly for the purpose of inducing those Master Builders' Associations which are applicants in the

deregistration proceedings to discontinue as applicants in

ARES BELEN tet np eee eet amet et elt eel a ee mE a a a nl lat teetthd Sit ee

the said proceedings. Mr. Keast gave unchallenged evidence that, "Mr.Gallagher made a statement to the effect that he expected his actions would achieve a withdrawal of support by the Master Builders' Associations throughout Australia for the deregistration proceedings against the Federation". In my opinion Mr. Gallagher there made it clear that his actions were intended by him to induce the Master Builders' Associations throughout Australia to withdraw from their role as joint applicants in the deregistration proceedings. Again, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that those Statements by Mr. Gallagher on 14 April, 1982, viewed objectively, had the tendency to so dissuade persons who are potential witnesses and also the tendency to induce the Master Builders' Associations to discontinue as applicants. Accordingly, I find that the second-named respondent, Norman L. Gallagher, has committed contempt of the Federal Court of

Australia by interfering with the course of justice.

As to the third-named respondent, Patrick Donnelly, on a consideration of the whole of the evidence as to his conduct at the Williamstown School site on 5 April, 1982, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he had any of the intentions alleged in sub-paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of paragraph (i) of the statement of charge. Similarly on the evidence I am not satisfied that the conduct of Mr.

Donnelly at that site had any of the tendencies alleged in

sub-paragraphs (1), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of paragraph (i) of

Freep rrp eee pment eprint ne ee cee oe me ~ a - _ - - Ree

THE MASTER BUILDERS' FEDERATION OF AUSTRALIA INCORPORATED

THE MASTER BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (INCORPORATED)

MASTER BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

THE MASTER BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (UNION OF EMPLOYERS) PERTH

oa amcmsmpenmid 111A Lad ath Redan Tz aed A ce SU SR ly OR ac hI el | abn cater A aa we Dat a e Manse n eaha A ott nla em NAD © AL ISR tt a eA AOR NO PET ma

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT These reasons for judgment are intended to be read as if there were incorporated in them the reasons for judgment @elivered on 11 May, 1982 when the court made orders that the ficst-named, second-named and fifth-named respondents (the three respondents) be adjudged guilty of contempt of court. Until the time of the making of those orders none of the respondents had given evidence or called any evidence or advanced any submissions as to the question of penalty. When the hearing preceding these orders concluded on 3 May; 1982, Mr. Ryan Q.C. on behalf of the respondents, in anSwer to a question from the court, said that the respondents wished to consider their position in the event that they were found guilty of contempt of court. They have now done so and certain submissions have been put to the court on their behalf by Mr.Ryan. _. Each of the three respondents has been found guilty

of contempt of court consisting of intimidatory conduct which

hac ctl Ln orate dailies ta a haa nei deck tL ahotels4aremma dian eA

rent ahaha thai IIAP ese etarmaPeseAalda ail Senet tad i Re!

has two aspects. The first aspect consisted of intimidatory conduct which was engaged in for the purpose of, and with the tendency to, dissuade persons from giving evidence on behalf of the applicants in the deregistration proceedings or, if the respondents failed in that purpose, of dissuading them from giving evidence unfavourable to the federation in thdSe

= There is high judicial authority for the view, which I respectfully adopt, that there can be no greater contempt than to intimidate a witness before he gives his evidence (Attorney-General v Butterworth [1963] 1 Q.B. 696 at p.719 per Lord Denning M.R.). In this community the courts of law exist for the benefit of all citizens to enable them to have their claims and counterclaims heard and determined in accordance with the law. Plainly the courts will not be able to determine those cases in accordance with the law if one party to the litigation is allowed to frighten potential witnesses into refusing to give evidence at all or to frighten them in such a way that the evidence that they could give, and would otherwise give, is coloured or diluted into evidence which is not unfavourable to the party engaging in

the conduct. In Watson v Collings and Ors. (1944) 70 C.L.R.

51 at p.58, referring to the sending of a telegram to a

'person who "would or might be, called as a witness for the

"No court can allow to pass without observation an act calculated to affect the testimony of a witness, or to embarrass him in giving evidence. Although in the result the transmission of the letter does not appear to have influenced Mr. Gahan to disregard his duty as a witness, as he gave his evidence freely, independently and candidly, it 1s necessary to say that it is against the law for any person who has any authority or means of influence over a witness

to use it for the purpose of affecting his evidence."

In Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd. [1974] A.C. 273 Lord Diplock (at p.309) referred to influence or pressure which might cause witnesses to be unwilling to give evidence with candour at the trial and to the risk of influencing someone who might be called as a witness to alter his evidence or to decline to testify. Lord Simon (at p.318) said that it would unquestionably be contempt of court if an employer threatened a witness with dismissal whether before, pending or after trial and added that private pressure on a witness would never be justifiable and that witnesses must be able to give honest and fearless testimony. Lord Reid (at p.296) said that in order to prevent the trial from being

unfair "comment likely to affect the minds of witnesses ...

The second aspect of the contempt of court committed by each respondent is that each engaged in intimidatory conduct for the purpose of, and with the tendency to, induce those Master Builders' Associations which

are applicants in the deregistration proceedings to

discontinue as applicants. It is difficult to imagine a greater contempt than to engage in such conduct for the purpose of inducing a party to discontinue. Any such conduct violates the fundamental purpose of our system of justice that all citizens must have the right to obtain the decision of a court upon all the evidence properly available in proceedings in which they are parties. That principle is breached by conduct which is intended to frighten an applicant into discontinuing or which has the tendency to

induce an applicant to so discontinue by reason of fear

Te was not suggested that the conduct of any respondent which was found to constitute contempt of court, was in any way due to any misapprehension as to the respondent's legal obligations. No evidence in mitigation of

penalty was placed before the court by any of the respondents

after they had been found guilty and had time to consider

their position in the light of the finding of guilt. After

hearing the submission as to penalty put on their behalf I said that in considering my decision on the appropriate penalties -

"I must assume ... that each respondent has been fully advised as to the seriousness of its position; that each has been advised that it is ... common for persons found guilty of contempt of court to express regret, to give some assurances as to future conduct. Now, I note that no such expression of regret has been forthcoming, no affidavits have been filed indicating any change of heart on the part of any of the persons involved. I think I should draw your attention expressly to those two

matters, Mr. Ryan ... I Shall assume ... that these

Matters have been fully considered and that a considered decision to not put any such material

before the court has been made. Now,if you want an opportunity to consider that, either with Mr. Merkel or with your instructors, I am quite happy to give it to you."

MR. RYAN: "We understand what your Honour has put, but the submissions which we made were of course put

on instructions and we have nothing further to add, your Honour".

No respondent has expressed any regret or given any assurances, either personally or through his counsel, as to his or its future conduct. The failure of each respondent to express regret or to give any assurances as to future conduct is, of course, not a reason for imposing higher penalties than those which would otherwise be appropriate to che contempt of court of which each has been found guilty. Its only relevance is that, where such a course is followed, such matters have been treated as grounds for imposing no penalty or a lower penalty than would otherwise be the case in respect of a particular contempt. (see, for example, Taylor v

Mr. Ryan submitted that the contempts by the respondents in these proceedings all occurred "in an industrial context" and should be so viewed by the court in determining penalty. He déveloped that submission at some length (pp.244-251 of the transcript) referring to "the hostility engendered and maintained by pending deregistration

proceedings", the "cut and thrust of the conflict" and said

that "one can understand, if not excuse an insensitivity on the part of those embroiled in the conflict to the considerations affecting the court ... and to the considerations affecting the processes of that court". Mr. Ryan concluded this part of his submission by submitting that the court should incline to leniency rather than impose "a penalty which could be regarded as harshly retributive", urging in support of the desirability of that course the ",..proper concern of the court in this wider industrial relations context ... not to do anything which could impede a retreat from the confrontationist position in which the

parties have been concerned since the deregistration

Ohe difficulty that I have with this carefully worded submission is that there does not appear to be any evidence as to the likelihood of any "retreat from the confrontationist position" by the federation - other than the lifting of the bans on the day on which the injunctive proceedings came before this court pursuant to the order of Smithers J. However, even if there were such evidence of a retreat from confrontation this court must determine the question of penalty on the same considerations as those which would apply in the High Court of Australia or in the Supreme Courts of the States. Having determined the penalties which

would otherwise be appropriate, it would be quite wrong for

thw cata he cake recta Makes YO et Ae neem evel 1008 a EN A SL AL mel 1 A st dE ket emer ce tek ATE Oe A ls lat A Patna ARCRA EN me RO: i aa A A MRA HORAN ts PR! cl" ld Be V1 Pema

, 10. this court to refrain from imposing those penalties by reason of a "concern" that the imposition of such penalties "could impede a retreat from the confrontationist position".

The conduct of which the respondents have been found guilty was intended to and also, viewed objectively, had the tendency to interfere with the course of justice in this court both by deterring witnesses and by inducing

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (273 paragraphs)