ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Prohibited import - Evidence of importation-Admissibility of answers given by
accused to questions put to him by officer-Customs Act 1901-1910 (No. 6 of 1901-No. 36 of 1910), sec. 233B (1) (c). PERTH,
There is no rule that answers given by an accused person to questions put Nov. 7, 8.
to him by an officer are prima facie inadmissible.
R. v. Berriman, 6 Cox C.C., 1854, explained. In coming to a conclusion whether prohibited goods have been imported since the date of prohibition, all the circumstances of the case, including the demeanour, statements and conduct of the accused, must be taken into
Decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (McMillan J.) reversed.
APPEAL, by special leave, from the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
The respondent's premises were searched by two Customs officers, who discovered that the place was fitted up with benches such as are used by opium smokers. The officers asked the respondent if he had any opium, and he replied that he never had any. On searching, they discovered in the fireplace, among the ashes, a horn container with a little opium in the bottom, and another container nearly full of fresh opium suitable for smoking. One
of the officers held up the full container and asked the respondent H. C. OF where he got it, and he replied, "Singapore man bring it from steamer."
The respondent was prosecuted before a police magistrate on a charge of having in his possession a prohibited import, to wit, opium suitable for smoking, and was convicted. The Supreme Court (McMillan J.) quashed the conviction, on the grounds that the answers of the accused to the questions of the officer as to how he got the opium were inadmissible, and that without them there was not sufficient evidence of importation in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act 1901-1910.
From that decision the appellant now by special leave appealed to the High Court.
F. Unmack, for the appellant. The evidence of the officers as to the answers of the respondent is clearly admissible, and proves that the respondent had a guilty knowledge that the opium was imported. In any event the inadmissibility of this evidence cannot now be put forward by the respondent Purkis V. Huxtable 1; Britcher v. Williams (2). The case of R. V. Berrimun 3 was decided a very long time ago, and has since often been dissented from: R. v. Rogerson 4; R. v. Tim Crown 5; Attorney-General for New South Wales v. Martin 6. Unless some promise, threat or inducement had been made or held out to the accused in order to obtain his answer, it was admissible: R. v. Silvester Thornton 7; R. v. Miller 8 R. V. Brackenbury 9. There seems to be a distinction drawn in some of these cases between a question asked before and one asked after arrest, but according to…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Hough v Ah Sam
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hough v Ah Sam [1912] HCA 78
Case
[1912] HCA 78
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, the Crown, appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which had quashed a conviction against the respondent. The respondent had been convicted by a police magistrate for possessing a prohibited import, namely opium suitable for smoking, contrary to the Customs Act 1901-1910. The Supreme Court had quashed the conviction on the basis that the respondent's answers to questions put by Customs officers regarding the opium's origin were inadmissible evidence, and without this evidence, there was insufficient proof of importation.
The legal issues before the High Court were whether the answers given by the respondent to the Customs officers' questions were admissible as evidence, and if so, whether, when considered with the other evidence, there was sufficient proof that the opium had been imported into Australia in contravention of the Customs Act. Specifically, the court had to determine if the respondent's statement, "Singapore man bring it from steamer," constituted admissible evidence of importation and whether the magistrate was entitled to infer from the circumstances that the opium was imported after its prohibition.
The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that there is no rule rendering answers given by an accused to an officer's questions inadmissible per se. The court clarified that such statements are admissible unless induced by a threat, promise, or false representation. The court found that the respondent's statement was voluntary and admissible. Furthermore, the court reasoned that the magistrate was entitled to consider all the circumstances, including the respondent's conduct, the freshness of the opium, its concealment, and the respondent's initial denial, to infer that the opium had been imported since the prohibition. The court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the order of the Supreme Court of Western Australia be discharged, and the conviction of the respondent be restored.