I am asked to advise-

(1) Whether paragraph 3.(2) of the Regulations prevents the internment without trial of a naturalized person arrested under paragraph 55, who is known to have committed an offence against the Act, and who by reason of his having committed such offence is believed to be disaffected or disloyal.

(2) Whether paragraph 3.(2) of the Regulations prevents the internment without trial of a naturalized person who is known or believed to be disaffected or disloyal but who has not committed any offence with which he can be charged either under the Act or otherwise.

I would point out that the Hansard paragraph referred to (28 May 1915, pp.3538-9) refers chiefly to regulation 54.

That regulation gives power to any authorised person to arrest without warrant any person whose behaviour is suspicious, or who is known or suspected to have committed an offence against the Act.⁽¹⁾ Except in the case of an alien enemy, it does not authorise internment without trial; any other person so arrested must either be tried or released.

Regulation 55 empowers the Minister, on suspicion that a naturalized person is disaffected or disloyal, to order him to be detained, without trial, during the war. This is not by way of punishment for a supposed offence, but is for the security of the Commonwealth against a suspected danger. The exercise of this power is not affected by regulation 3(2), which deals only with proceedings for an offence.⁽²⁾

The answers to the specific questions asked are:

1. No. If the Minister has reason to believe him-on any ground-to be affected [sic] or disloyal he may order him to be interned. But, when the ground of suspicion amounts to clear evidence of an offence, it would ordinarily be advisable that he should be tried.
2. No.

[Vol. 13, p. 456]

(1)The War Precautions Act 1914-1915.

(2)Reg.3(2) read:.

'Nothing in these Regulation shall be counstrued as affecting the right to trail by a civil court of presons,other then alien enemies or persons subject to the naval Discipline Act or to military law,for offence againts the Act.'

(30This opinion is unsigned in the Opinion Book, but it is attributed to Mr Hughes.