Justice S.P.J. Mansfield These are appeals under Section 11 of The Objectionable Literature Act of 1954 against an order of The Literature Board of Review whereby the Board by notification in the Queensland Government Gazette of 25th December 1954, prohibited the distribution in Queensland "of all and every the literature, being writings published periodically, specified in the Schedule hereto for that the said Literature is, in the opinion of the Board objectionable". The order was expressed to apply "with respect to all copies of every part, number or series thereof whether published theretofore or hereafter". The Gazette contained a Schedule setting out a list of the publications referred to, including those which are the subject matter of these appeals. By the said Section 11 it is provided: "A person who feels aggrieved by order made by the Board in respect of any literature may appeal by way of Order to Review as if that order were an order made by Justices sitting as a Court of Petty Sessions and Part IX of 'The Justices Acts 1886 to 1949' shall, with and subject to all necessary adaptations of the provisions thereof, apply and extend accordingly. The Court or Judge before whom such an order to review is returnable shall determine as an issue in the appeal the matter of whether or not the literature in question or some part thereof is objectionable under and within the meaning of this Act, and in respect of coat determination, shall not be bound by the opinion of the Board." This Section raises some unusual consideration. In the first instance, the obtaining of the Order to Review under the Justices Acts necessitates the establishment by the person aggrieved of a prima facie case of error or mistake in law or fact. Where the appeal is from Justices the evidence and the materials adduced before the said Justices and on which they have based their decision is part of the record, and, on the return of the Order to Review, the Court or Judge must consider such evidence and materials, and if the Court or Judge thinks fit, any further evidence. In the instant cases, the record contains copies of the subject literature, the order of the Board, the affidavit of the applicants annexing these copies and setting out the grounds of appeal, and the Order to Review. As far as this Court is concerned therefore, it must assume that the Board had no other materials before it and that its decision was based on a consideration of the subject literature or a sufficient part thereof to indicate its nature. If there was any other material, this Court is not aware of it, and it would, in my opinion, not be proper to assume that the decision of the Board was arrived at by taking into consideration anything other than the literature itself. There would, therefore, seem to be before it no evidence in the sense of legal evidence of the persons, classes of persons and age groups to or amongst whom the literature is or is intended to be or is likely to be distributed or of the Copyright 2013 Blaq Books
235
