Re: LAURENCE CHARLES O'NEIL
And: IAN DOUGLAS WRATTEN; THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and PAUL ANTHONY
MURPHY
No. G286 of 1984
Customs - Seizure - Administrative Law - Jurisdiction
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Jackson J.
CATCHWORDS
Customs - customs warrant - powers exercisable if person failed to comply with requirement of officer - no requirement communicated - no failure to comply - material illegally obtained - whether admissible to determine whether reasonable grounds for belief that forfeited.
Seizure - whether service of notice of seizure sufficient to constitute seizure.
Administrative Law - application for review of decision to seize.
Jurisdiction - whether jurisdiction to determine whether goods are forfeited goods.
Toy Centre Agencies Pty Ltd v. Spencer (1983) 46 A.L.R. 351
Pearce v. Button (1985) 60 A.L.R. 537
Vickers v. Young (1982) 65 F.L.R. 260
17 Halsbury 4th Ed. para 489
Lloyds & Scottish Finance Ltd v. Modern Cars & Caravans
(Kingston) Ltd (1966) 1 QB 764
Pearce v. Button (Full Court Federal Court 7 March 1986)
Frost v. Collector of Customs for Qld (Wilcox J. 26 November 1985)
Sandery v. Commissioner of Police, Australian Federal Police (Jackson J. 27 February 1986)
Philip Morris Inc. v. Adam P. Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd (1981) 148 C.L.R. 457
Stack v. Coast Securities (No. 9) Pty Ltd (1983) 154 C.L.R. 261
HEARING
SYDNEY
#DATE 2:5:1986
ORDER
It be declared that:
1. The decision of the first respondent that the
Mercedes Benz 500 SEC motor vehicle, the subject of the proceedings, be seized in the exercise of the powers conferred by s.203(2) of the Customs Act was lawfully made.
2. The purported seizure of the said vehicle on 17th
July 1984 was not in pursuance of the provisions of the Customs Act and was unlawful.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
JUDGE1
Under the provisions of s.203(2) of the Customs Act 1901 an "authorized person", a term defined in s.203(1), may seize:-
".. any forfeited goods or any goods that he believes on reasonable grounds are forfeited goods."
"Forfeited goods" for the purposes of s.203(1) include goods which are forfeited to the Crown by reason of the operation of a provision of s.229(1) and the parts of s.229(1) presently relevant are ss.229(1)(a) and 229(1)(i), which provide that:-
"(1) The following goods shall be forfeited to the Crown:
(a) All goods which are smuggled, or unlawfully imported, exported, or conveyed.
(i) All goods in respect of which any entry invoice declaration answer statement or representation which is false or wilfully misleading in any particular has been delivered made or produced."
The goods in question are a Mercedes Benz 500 SEC motor car which was transported to Australia from Tilbury in the United Kingdom in a container aboard the "Sydney Express". The "Sydney Express" left Tilbury on 9th June 1984 and berthed at Fremantle on 5th July. It thereafter called at Adelaide and Melbourne, berthing…
Continue reading O'Neil v Wratten
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- O'Neil, L.C. v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor [1986] FCA 163
- Case
- [1986] FCA 163
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the customs officers had properly exercised their powers under the Customs Act and whether the evidence obtained through the illegal seizure could be used to determine if there were reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle was forfeited. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the failure to communicate a requirement to the plaintiffs constituted a failure to comply, and whether this was a necessary condition for the exercise of powers under the Act.
The court held that the customs officers did not properly exercise their powers as there was no communicated requirement that the plaintiffs had failed to comply with. Consequently, the seizure of the vehicle was unlawful. Furthermore, the court found that the evidence obtained through the illegal seizure was inadmissible for determining whether there were reasonable grounds for the belief that the vehicle was forfeited. The court's reasoning was based on the premise that the officers' actions did not align with the statutory requirements, thus rendering the evidence obtained through their illegal actions unusable in the subsequent determination.
The final orders declared that the decision to seize the vehicle was lawful in itself, but the actual seizure was not in accordance with the Customs Act and was therefore unlawful. The court also ruled that the evidence obtained through the illegal seizure could not be used to substantiate the claim that there were reasonable grounds for the forfeiture belief. The orders specified that the seizure decision was lawful but the execution was not, and clarified the admissibility of evidence obtained illegally.
Orders
Orders of the court
It be declared that:
1. The decision of the first respondent that the
Mercedes Benz 500 SEC motor vehicle, the subject of the proceedings, be seized in the exercise of the powers conferred by s.203(2) of the Customs Act was lawfully made.
2. The purported seizure of the said vehicle on 17th
July 1984 was not in pursuance of the provisions of the Customs Act and was unlawful.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.