Murphy v Farmer - [1988] HCATrans 70

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S115 of 1987
B e t w e e n -
PAUL ANTHONY MURPHY

Appellant

and
JAMES ALFRED FARMER

Respondent

BRENNAN J
DEANE J
DAWSON J
TOOHEY J

GAUDRON J

Murphy(2)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 21 APRIL 1988, AT 10.19AM

C2T2/l/SH

21/4/88

!1R R.J. BURBIDGE, QC: In this matter,may it please the Court,

I appear with my learned friend, !1R L. KATZ, for the
appellant. (instructed by the Australian Government
SoJ.icitor)

!1R T.E.F. HUGHES, QC:

May it please the Court, I appear with

my learned friend, !1R V. GRAY, for the respondent.
(instructed by Malcolm Johns & Company)

!1R BURBIDGE:

Thank you.,

Your Honours.

May I hand up an

outline of the appellant's submissions and may I
indicate, Your Honours, that the point is a short

point indeed. The sole question which Your Honours
are asked to decide is the question of whether the
word "faults" in section 229(l)(i) of the
CUSTOMS ACT, 1901 means "untrue in fact" or
"wilfully false".

BRENNAN J:

You might give us a moment just to scan your

notes of argument, Mr Burbidge.

!1R BURBIDGE: If Your Honours please.

BRENNAN J: Yes, Mr Burbidge.

!1R BURBIDGE:

Thank you, Your Honour.

Your Honours, the facts

of the matter need not, of course, detain Your Honours.
I should indicate that the relevant date is 11 May 1984,
that being the date on which the respondent imported
from New Zealand a motor vehicle which was seized by

customs that day. The sole reference I propose to
make to the transcript record of proceedings before
Your Honours is to tell Your Honours where the
factual matter is recorded and then I do not propose

to go to it further. It is at page 109 which is part
of His Honour the trial judge's judgment. It is
sufficient to take Your Honours to the first lines
of that page where His Honour records the factual
situation in these terms:

(Continued on page 3)

C2T2/2/SH	2	21/4/88
Murphy(2)
MR BURBIDGE (continuing):

Those answers were affirmative answers given
to the following two questions -
and they are of no significance -

and a negative answer to the question -

this is line 10 -
"Did you or your husband or wife, as appropriate,
import a vehicle into Australia within the
past three years."

That is the question which was conceded to be
incorrectly answered, as appears at page 112 -
also part of His Honour's judgment - and the first
lines of that page:
It was conceded by the plaintiff that

the negative answer to the third question .....
was erroneous but he claimed that it was the
consequence of a mistake or misunderstanding
on his part.

Now, Your Honours, His Honour the trial judge was
was of a view that the word "false" in section 229(1)(i)
meant wilfully false and so held. That view was
also taken unanimously…

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 Murphy v Farmer

Details

AGLC: Murphy v Farmer [1988] HCATrans 70
Case: [1988] HCATrans 70
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Murphy, appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision concerning the forfeiture of a motor vehicle. The respondent, Farmer, had imported the vehicle from New Zealand, and it was subsequently seized by customs. The core of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of the word "false" within section 229(1)(i) of the *Customs Act 1901* (Cth).

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the word "false" in section 229(1)(i) of the *Customs Act 1901* required proof of wilful intent, or if it simply meant untrue in fact. This question arose because the respondent had provided an incorrect answer to a customs declaration regarding the importation of a vehicle, which he claimed was due to a mistake or misunderstanding rather than wilful deception.

The High Court considered the wording of section 229(1)(i), which states that goods are forfeited if "any invoice declaration answer statement or representation which is false or wilfully misleading in any particular has been delivered made or produced." The trial judge and the New South Wales Court of Appeal had both held that "false" in this context meant "wilfully false." The appellant argued that this interpretation was too narrow and that "false" should encompass any statement that is untrue in fact, regardless of intent. The Court was therefore tasked with determining the correct legal meaning of "false" in the context of customs declarations and forfeiture provisions.

Orders