Hill v Donohoe

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia concerning a conviction under section 233B(c) of the *Customs Act 1901-1910*. The appellant, John Thomas Tamplin Donohoe, was found in possession of opium, a prohibited import, while in a boat coming from the S.S. Taiyuan in Sydney Harbour at night. He made a statement to the arresting officer suggesting a desire to "talk business."

The legal issues before the court were whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that the opium had been imported into Australia in contravention of the Act, and whether section 233B(c) of the *Customs Act 1910* was constitutionally valid. Specifically, the court considered whether the section required knowledge on the part of the accused that the prohibited imports had been imported unlawfully.

The High Court held that the statement made by the appellant to the arresting officer was a reasonable inference that he knew he had committed a breach of the law. Furthermore, the court interpreted section 233B(c) to require that the defendant know the prohibited imports in their possession had been imported into Australia in contravention of the Act. As so construed, the section was deemed to be ancillary to the prohibition of importation and therefore intra vires the Commonwealth Parliament, following the principle established in *Lyons v. Smart*. The appeal was dismissed.