Customs and Excise—Importation of goods—Customs offences—Goods brought within three miles of coast—Whether imported into Australia—Prohibited imports—Assembling to prevent seizure of prohibited imports—Possessing prohibited imports—Allowing ship to be used in importation of goods—Incidents occurring within three miles of Australia coast—Customs Act 1901-1974 (Cth), ss. 231, 233A, 233B. Courts—Supreme Court of Northern Territory—Jurisdiction to hear charges under Customs Act 1901-1974 alleging acts committed within three miles of coast—Whether admiralty jurisdiction—Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of South Australia on 1st January 1911—Northern Territory Supreme Court Act 1961-1971 (Cth), s. 15—Judiciary Act 1903-1969 (Cth), s. 39 (2)—Supreme Court Act 1856 (S.A.), s. 7.
Decisions
1974, June 11. The following written judgments were delivered:- BARWICK C.J. In March 1973 the vessel Mariana made a voyage from Darwin in the Northern Territory of Australia to the Island of Bali in Indonesia. On its return voyage towards Australia, the vessel was under the observation of Australian authorities concerned with the administration of the Australian customs. As the vessel neared the port of Darwin, an Australian Army helicopter co-operating with those authorities began to descend over the vessel in a fashion and to a degree well calculated to alert those on the vessel to the fact that the vessel was under close surveillance. A launch carrying customs officers was at the same time on its way from Darwin towards the vessel. It may be, particularly having regard to the subsequent actions of those on board the vessel, that the action of the helicopter indicated to them the imminence of a boarding operation by the customs. (at p207)
2. Joseph Corns was the master of the vessel: Barry Richard Bull, John Plithakis and Gregory James Conn were either crew members or passengers upon it. The vessel was carrying cannabis, procured in Bali and packed in suitcases. On the near approach of the helicopter these suitcases were jettisoned by those on board the vessel and its decks washed down so that upon the subsequent inspection of the vessel when boarded by the customs officers no cannabis was found on board. Later, in the port of Darwin, no cannabis was found upon any of the persons who had been on the vessel other than 14.8 grams of cannabis resin which was found on Gregory James Conn. However, as the vessel after being boraded was brought into port under escort, the possession within the limits of the port of this quantity of cannabis resin was not relied upon by the Crown in connexion with any of the charges subsequently laid. Some of the contents of the jettisoned suitcases, amounting to 31,000 grams of cannabis, was recovered from the sea by officers of customs. (at p208)
3. Joseph Corns, Barry Richard Bull, John Plithakis and Gregory James Conn (the accused) were thereafter indicted before the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory with having…
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 R v Bull
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Bull [1974] HCA 23
Case
[1974] HCA 23
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *R v Bull* concerned an appeal by the applicant, Bull, against his conviction for the offence of receiving stolen property. The prosecution alleged that Bull had received a quantity of stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen. The dispute centred on whether the prosecution had discharged its burden of proving Bull's knowledge that the goods were stolen at the time he received them. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appeal.
The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law in directing the jury on the question of the applicant's knowledge. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the direction given was sufficient to ensure the jury understood the onus of proof rested on the prosecution to establish the applicant's guilty knowledge beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the direction adequately explained the circumstances from which such knowledge could be inferred.
The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the direction given to the jury was inadequate. The court reasoned that a mere statement that the jury could infer knowledge from the circumstances was not sufficient. It was necessary for the judge to explain that the prosecution bore the burden of proving that the accused knew the goods were stolen, and that this knowledge could not be presumed. The jury needed to be instructed that they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused possessed this knowledge, and that the inference of knowledge could only be drawn if the circumstances were such that the accused must have known the goods were stolen, or wilfully shut his eyes to the obvious. The court emphasised that the inference of knowledge could not be based on mere suspicion or on the accused failing to make inquiries.
The High Court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.