Minogue v Briggs - [1987] TASSC 63

Serial No 60/1987
List “A”

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Minogue v Briggs [1987] TASSC 63; A60/1987

PARTIES:  MINOGUE
  v
  BRIGGS

FILE NO/S:  50/1987
DELIVERED ON:  26 November 1987
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
JUDGMENT OF:  Wright J

Judgment Number: A60/1987
Number of paragraphs: 17

Serial No 60/1987
File No 50/1987
List "A"

MINOGUE v BRIGGS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WRIGHT J

26 November 1987

This is an appeal by way of motion to review a decision of a Magistrate sitting in the Court of Petty Sessions at Hobart on 8 May 1987. His Worship dismissed a number of complaints by the applicant against the respondent that he, the respondent, had made untrue statements in documents furnished to a customs officer in breach of s234(1)(e) of the Customs Act (1901). In dismissing the complaints his Worship held that to establish the commission of an offence under that provision it was necessary for the prosecutor to show that the maker of the untrue statement knew that it was untrue or alternatively that he was recklessly indifferent as to whether the statement was true or not at the time he made it. His Worship relied upon Cameron v Holt (1980) 142 CLR 342 and He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523.

In the course of his decision his Worship reviewed the evidence of the respondent's state of mind when he made the statements in question. He accepted the respondent's claim that due to poor memory he honestly but mistakenly made incorrect assertions of fact in a number of Unaccompanied Baggage Statements required by Customs in respect of household furniture and effects which the respondent wished to bring with him to Hobart following a period of 2 years' residence in Singapore.

A point which may be emphasized at the outset is that his Worship was not concerned with an interpretation of s229 or any part of s234 other than subs1(e). I make this observation because a good deal of the legal argument which took place before him concerned the interpretation of those and other provisions of the Customs Act which are not directly relevant to the present motion to review. Small differences in language between different sections of an Act can have a significant effect upon interpretation as pointed out by Priestly JA in Murphy v Farmer (1987) 72 ALR 679 at 692 – 3:

"Section 234(1) states in seven paragraphs a number of things which a person shall not do. Three paragraphs, (d), (e) and (f), are in language which echoes the words of s 229(1)(i) in a number of respects. The things a person shall not do, according to paras (d), (e) and (f) are:
'(d) Make or give any entry which is false in a particular.
'(e)Make in any declaration or document produced, given, delivered or furnished to any officer any statement which is untrue in any particular or produce, give, deliver or furnish to any officer any declaration or document containing any such statement.
'(f)Mislead any officer…

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 Minogue v Briggs

Details

AGLC: Minogue v Briggs [1987] TASSC 63
Case: [1987] TASSC 63
Decision Date: 26 November 1987

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Minogue v Briggs is an appeal against a decision of a Magistrate in the Court of Petty Sessions at Hobart, which dismissed complaints against Briggs for making untrue statements in documents furnished to a customs officer, in breach of s234(1)(e) of the Customs Act (1901). The court was required to decide whether mens rea, or intent, was necessary to establish an offence under s234(1)(e) of the Customs Act. The court examined the language of the statute, the subject matter, and relevant case law, including Cameron v Holt and He Kaw Teh v The Queen, to determine whether mens rea was an essential element of the offence. The court found that mens rea was not an essential ingredient of an offence under s 234(1) of the Customs Act 1901, and that the plain purpose of s234(1)(e) is to ensure that accurate information is provided to Customs officers charged with the duty of administering the Customs Act. The court allowed the motion for review and remitted the relevant complaints to be retried by another magistrate according to law.

Orders