Page:Hocking v Director-General of the National Archives of Australia.pdf/72

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

66.

Official Secretary on behalf of the official establishment of the Governor-General, rather than on behalf of, or as agent for, Sir John. On any view, the physical transfer of the package was not made by Sir John or his personal representative.

185 The form and content of the documents in the original file[1] further reinforce the conclusion that Mr Smith deposited the package in his capacity as Official Secretary on behalf of the official establishment of the Governor-General. Most, but not all, of the letters and telegrams were exchanged by Sir John, as Governor-General, through the Official Secretary. All of the letters and telegrams were exchanged by The Queen through her Private Secretary. The majority of the documents were letters addressing topics relating to the official duties and responsibilities of the Governor-General. Some of the letters were in the form of reports to The Queen about the events of the day in Australia. Certain of the reports included attached photocopies of newspaper articles and other correspondence "expanding upon and corroborating the information communicated by the Governor-General in relation to contemporary political happenings in Australia". As the plurality explain[2], given the nature and significance of that correspondence, it was only to be expected that it would be kept within the official establishment of the Governor-General with responsibility for keeping records created or received by a Governor-General in that capacity.

186 Thus, it does not matter if Sir John had some property interest in the correspondence or its contents–any such property interest was not inconsistent with the official establishment of the Governor-General having "property" in the letters as that term is used in the Archives Act. But if Sir John did have some property interest in the correspondence or its contents then under the control of the Official Secretary in his official capacity (and it is unnecessary to resolve that question), Sir John encouraged and agreed in the Official Secretary retaining custody of the package containing that correspondence, and then subsequently depositing it with the Australian Archives[3]. By those actions, Sir John must be taken to have given up any property interest he may have held. For Sir John, it was enough that he had a copy of the correspondence.

187 Put in different terms, when Sir John put in train, as he did, that the correspondence on the original file was to be copied and then the contents of that original file deposited with the Australian Archives, Sir John gave up any claim that he might have had in respect of the original file. The better view is that even before Sir John took those steps, the original file was the "property" of the official


  1. Reasons of Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ at [10].
  2. Reasons of Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ at [117].
  3. Reasons of Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ at [16]–[18], [21]–[22].