Lewis v The King - [1912] HCA 44

THE KING AND ANOTHER

RESPONDENTS. PLAINTIFFS. Offences against Customs law-Intent to defraud the revenue-Maximum penalty-

Reduction of penalty-Customs Act 1901 (No. 6 of 1901), secs. 234, 240, 241.

Where the penalty provided by the Customs Act 1901 for an offence charged is less than three times the value of the goods in respect of which the offence has been committed, and the defendant is at the same time charged with, and convicted of, an intent to defraud the revenue, the maximum penalty is, under secs. 240 and 241 of the Act, six times the value of the goods.

A person desiring to import for his own use furniture for which he had paid in London £189 12s., and to evade payment of duty thereon, had the goods consigned in three separate parcels to two of his employés whom he induced to make statutory declarations that the goods were their own and had been in their use for some years, the value of the goods being also understated, with the result that no customs duties were paid on the goods. In an action to recover penalties for evading customs duties with intent to defraud the revenue, Higgins J. imposed the maximum penalties, amounting to £1,211 12s., and ordered the forfeiture of the goods, and that the defendant should pay the duty on them, amounting to £61 2s. lld., and the costs of the action. On appeal to the Full Court,

Held, that under all the circumstances, and having regard to fresh facts brought before the Full Court, the penalties should be reduced from £1,211 12s. to £300.

APPEAL from Higgins J.

An action was brought in the High Court by the King and the Minister of State for the Commonwealth administering the Customs against Warren Lewis charging him under the Customs Act 1901 in respect of each of three separate lots of goods with

14 CLR 184

the offence of procuring the delivery of the goods for home con-

sumption without the payment of any duty, and thereby evading payment of the duty payable upon them, and in each case the

THE KING.

plaintiffs also charged him with having committed the offence with intent to defraud the revenue. The defendant admitted all the allegations of the plaintiffs. A statement of facts was admitted by the parties, and was read at the trial, which was to the following effect :-

The defendant, at all times material to the action, carried on business at 277/279 Lonsdale Street Melbourne and also in Sydney as a manufacturer of hats and caps.

During the year 1910 the defendant was in London on a visit from Australia. While in London he on the 16th and 17th August 1910 purchased the following goods at an auction sale held at Ashby House, Manor Road, Stamford Hill, London N. for the prices hereunder set forth. (Then followed a detailed list of the articles and the prices paid for them, the total amount being £189 12s.)

The…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lewis v The King and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1912] HCA 44
Decision Date: 20 June 1912

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Lewis v The King* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia following a decision by Higgins J. The appellant, Warren Lewis, was prosecuted under the *Customs Act 1901* for procuring the delivery of goods for home consumption without payment of duty, and for doing so with intent to defraud the revenue. Lewis admitted all the allegations made against him.

The legal issues before the High Court were primarily concerned with the calculation of the maximum penalty applicable under the *Customs Act 1901* for offences involving evasion of customs duties with intent to defraud the revenue, and whether the penalties imposed by the trial judge were excessive. Specifically, the court had to determine the interplay between sections 234, 240, and 241 of the Act in calculating the maximum penalty, and whether the discretion to impose such penalties had been exercised appropriately given the circumstances.

The High Court, in its reasoning, clarified the application of the penalty provisions. It confirmed that where an offence is committed with intent to defraud the revenue, the maximum penalty is six times the value of the goods, provided this amount is not less than £200. However, the Court also emphasised that the legislature grants a wide discretion in fixing penalties, and that the specific circumstances of each case must be considered. In this instance, while acknowledging the appellant's admitted guilt and the deliberate nature of the evasion, the Court took into account new facts presented on appeal, including the appellant's financial position and family circumstances, which had not been before the trial judge. The Court concluded that the maximum penalties imposed by Higgins J., totalling £1,211 12s., were excessive and disproportionate to the offence, particularly as it was considered an isolated transaction rather than part of a systematic fraud.

Consequently, the High Court reduced the total penalties to £300, with £50 of this amount attributed to the offence itself and a further £50 for the intent to defraud, for each of the three charges. The appellant was still required to forfeit the goods and pay the customs duty and costs. The Court also ordered a reduction in the amount of security previously given by the appellant.

Orders