22-APR-1991 17:40
CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS BR
852 840 1976
P. 13
32
decision, his ૩૭ વોર in the execution of his office under the second invalid appointment had equal force and effect with those of an officer de juze ana
were valid.
The doctrine of the validity of the acts of de facto public officers considered and discussed.
In re Aldridge (1893) 15 N.Z.L.R. 361 anč Adams v. Adam3 11971) D. 180.
followed.'
At P.
329 Bray, c.J. remarked that it was the First time in his experience of the law that "the veneravie
the coMMON 1aw principle of the
the acts of that
de facto officer done in the apparently regular execution of his office have equal force and effect with those of an officer de jure" had been invoked. He went on to state that the title of the office can only be challenyea "in some proceeding directly impeaching it, such as quo warranto".
•
#
Bray, C. J was satisfied that the principle was part of the Common law and was scill in force with Sir Jocelyn Simon, P. in Adams six years previously..
7.
He agreed Adams decided only
Bray, C.J. identified three circumstances in which the doctrine may not apply. Firstly, it does not apply to
The an illegal office.
office the purported exercise of muat exist de jure. Thus it was necessary to pass legislation to deal with Cromwell and the Procterate because, unlike the king, the office of Lord Protector did not exist. (See the Act for Confirmation of Judicial Proceedings 1660.)
Secondly, it is doubtful that it applies if the record itself disclused the invalidity of the appointment.
Thirdly,
the
doctrine does not apply to a mere
* without colour of any right.
7
·
Bray C.J.
then referred to Butler, C.J ទ statement of the principles involved in State v. Carroll which were described by the Unitea States Supreme Court us
elaporate and admiraoly statement of the law". _C.J. put the matcer nus:
"an
"A definition comprehensive aust, I think,
sufficiently accurate and cover the whole ground be substantially as
to
Butler,
80'H
02.90 698 298
Z£121
22-P0-1661