Murphy v Farmer

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.