Criminal Law—Mens rea—Statutory offence—Importing prohibited imports—Knowledge of nature and existence of commodity—"Knowledge"—Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s. 233B(1)(b).
Decisions
MASON C.J., DEANE AND DAWSON JJ.: In He Kaw Teh v. The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523, it was established that, in a prosecution for an offence against s.233B(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth), the prosecution must prove that the accused has acted with mens rea, that is to say, with a guilty mind. There was, however, a degree of divergence between the majority judgments in He Kaw Teh which makes it desirable that we indicate in succinct terms what will, at least in the ordinary case of a prosecution for such an offence, be necessary to discharge that onus.
2. Because the mental elements in different crimes vary widely it is impossible to make a statement which is universally valid for all purposes about the essential elements of a guilty mind. Depending upon the nature of the particular offence the requirement of a guilty mind may involve intention, foresight, knowledge or awareness with respect to some act, circumstance or consequence. Where the offence charged is the commission of a proscribed act, a guilty mind exists when an intention on the part of the accused to do the proscribed act is shown. The problem then is one of proof. How does one prove the existence of the requisite intention? Sometimes there is direct evidence in the form of an admission by the accused that he intended his conduct to involve the forbidden act. More often, the existence of the requisite intention is a matter of inference from what the accused has actually done. The intention may be inferred from the doing of the proscribed act and the circumstances in which it was done.
3. Where, as here, it is necessary to show an intention on the part of the accused to import a narcotic drug, that intent is established if the accused knew or was aware that an article which he intentionally brought into Australia comprised or contained narcotic drugs. But that is not to say that actual knowledge or awareness is an essential element in the guilty mind required for the commission of the offence. It is only to say that knowledge or awareness is relevant to the existence of the necessary intent. Belief, falling short of actual knowledge, that the article comprised or contained narcotic drugs would obviously sustain an inference of intention. So also would proof that the forbidden act was done in circumstances where it appears beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was aware of the likelihood, in the sense that there was a significant or real chance, that his conduct involved that act and nevertheless persisted in that conduct. As a practical matter, the inference of mens rea or a guilty mind will ordinarily be irresistible in cases…
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 Kural v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Kural v The Queen [1987] HCA 16
Case
[1987] HCA 16
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Kural, against his conviction for murder. The applicant had been found guilty of murder by a jury in the Supreme Court of Victoria and subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal of Victoria, which dismissed his appeal. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence and the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury.
The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the applicant's prior convictions and whether the judge's directions regarding the use of this evidence were sufficient to prevent prejudice to the applicant. Further, the Court had to consider whether the trial judge's summing up adequately explained the elements of the offence of murder and the relevant defences, particularly in light of the evidence presented.
The Court held that the admission of the applicant's prior convictions was prejudicial and that the directions given by the trial judge were inadequate to mitigate this prejudice. The judges reasoned that the jury may have been unduly influenced by the knowledge of the applicant's previous criminal history when considering his guilt for the current offence. Consequently, the High Court found that there had been a miscarriage of justice.
The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction for murder, and ordered a new trial.