R v Australasian Films Ltd - [1921] HCA 11

THE KING AND THE MINISTER FOR

AUSTRALASIAN FILMS LIMITED AND Customs Duties-Offence-Intent to defraud revenue-Corporation-Liability of

corporation for acts of servant-Acts done by servants of corporation with intent- Customs Act 1901-1910 (No. 6 of 1901-No. 36 of 1910), secs. 234, 241-Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (No. 2 of 1901), secs. 22, 24.

Sec. 234 of the Customs Act 1901-1910 provides that no person shall do certain acts, and imposes a penalty not exceeding £100 upon a person con- victed of doing any one of them. Sec. 241 provides that "Any person may at the same time be charged with an offence against this Act and with an intent to defraud the revenue and if in addition to such offence he is convicted of such intent the maximum penalty shall be double that otherwise provided."

Held, that under sec. 241 a corporation may be convicted of doing an act prohibited by sec. 234 with intent to defraud the revenue where its servant or agent in the course of his employment has done the particular act charged and that servant or agent, or some superior servant or agent by whose direction the act is done, had an intent to defraud the revenue, but not where a servant or agent not concerned in the doing of the act alone had that intent.

Mousell Brothers Ltd. v. London and North. Western Railway Co., (1917) 2 K.B., 836, applied.

Stephens v. Abrahams, 27 V.L.R., 753; 23 A.L.T., 233, approved.

QUESTIONS of law reserved.

An action in the High Court was brought by His Majesty the King and the Minister of State administering the Customs against Aus- tralasian Films Ltd. and Harry George Musgrove to recover penalties

29 CLR 196

A. under secs. 234 and 241 of the Customs Act 1901-1910, The action

was heard by Knox C.J., who, at the conclusion of the evidence, made certain findings of fact. which he stated in the following case, whereby he reserved the questions of law therein set out for the consideration of the Full Court :-

This is an action to recover penalties for certain alleged offences against the Customs Act. By the statement of claim the defendant Company was charged with sixty offences, which may be classified as follows :-In respect of drawback claimed on the export of four films, viz., Diamond from the Sky, Little Brother, A Square Deal and

A Journey to Nowhere-six offences in respect of each film against the provisions of sec. 234 of the Act were charged, viz., (1) misleading an officer in a particular likely to affect the discharge of his duty (sub- sec. (f) ) (2) making in a document produced to an officer (a drawback debenture) an untrue statement (sub-sec. (e) ) (3) producing to an officer a document (a drawback debenture) con- taining an untrue statement (sub-sec. ), (4) producing to an officer a statutory declaration by defendant Musgrove containing an untrue statement (sub-sec. (e) ), (5) misleading an officer by producing the drawback…

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 R v Australasian Films Ltd 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: [1921] HCA 11
Decision Date: 14 April 1921

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *The King and the Minister for Australasian Films Limited* involved an action in the High Court of Australia to recover penalties against Australasian Films Ltd. and Harry George Musgrove under sections 234 and 241 of the *Customs Act 1901-1910*. The dispute concerned alleged offences related to drawback claims on exported films and the importation of are lamps, with the Crown seeking to establish that the company had committed these offences with intent to defraud the revenue. The matter was heard by Knox C.J., who reserved questions of law for the consideration of the Full Court.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court were whether a corporation could be convicted of an offence under section 241 of the *Customs Act* which required proof of intent to defraud the revenue, and if so, under what circumstances such intent could be imputed to the corporation. Specifically, the court had to determine if the intent of a servant or agent could be attributed to the company, and whether the company could be held liable for acts done by its employees even if those employees did not personally possess the intent to defraud, but their actions, when viewed collectively or in conjunction with the knowledge of other employees, indicated such an intent.

The court applied the principle that a corporation can be convicted of an offence involving intent to defraud the revenue where its servant or agent, acting within the scope of their employment, commits the prohibited act and possesses the requisite intent. This intent can be imputed to the corporation if it resides in the servant or agent who performed the act, or in a superior servant or agent directing that act. However, the court clarified that a corporation would not be liable if a servant or agent, not involved in the commission of the act itself, alone held the intent to defraud. This reasoning drew upon established principles of agency and corporate liability, referencing cases such as *Mousell Brothers Ltd. v. London and North-Western Railway Co.* and *Stephens v. Abrahams*.

The court found that in relation to the importation of are lamps, the company could be convicted on ordinary principles of agency, as the employee who acted had the necessary knowledge and intent. For the film drawback claims, the court considered whether a broader principle applied, where intent could be inferred from the collective actions of different agents. The ultimate outcome of the case, regarding the specific penalties and the imputation of intent for each set of offences, would depend on the application of these principles to the detailed findings of fact made by the Chief Justice.

Orders