Selectrix Pty Ltd v Humphrys - [2001] VSC 45

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 6704 of 2000

SELECTRIX PTY. LTD.	Applicant/Appellant
v
ANDREA HUMPHRYS	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Hedigan, J.
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 and 12 February 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 March 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Selectrix P/L v. Humphrys
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 45

---

APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATES' COURT – Construction of s.13(1) of Ozone Protection Act 1989 (Commonwealth) – Whether absolute liability or strict liability created.

STRICT LIABILITY – Defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact – Whether prosecution had rebutted defence – Finding by Magistrate that mistake was not reasonably grounded – Whether open to Magistrate .

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant/Appellant	Mr D. Ross, Q.C. with Mr S. Gillespie-Jones	Law Partners
For the Respondent	Mr K. Armstrong	D.P.P. (Cth)

HIS HONOUR:

The matter before me is an appeal by the plaintiff company against a conviction and fine imposed by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria on 3 August 2000 whereby the appellant was convicted of an offence under s.13(1) of the Ozone Protection Act 1989 in that on 12 October 1999 the company imported hydrochlorofluorocarbons ("HCFCs") without holding a controlled substances licence under the Ozone Protection Act 1989. The company was fined $4,000 with $4,500 costs.

Section 13(1) of the Ozone Protection Act 1989 ("the Act") essentially provides that a person "must not manufacture, import or export an HCFC … unless the person holds a controlled substances licence that allows the person to do so." It is not in dispute that the motor car refrigerant being imported contained hydrochlorofluorocarbons. In the proceeding before the Magistrate a considerable number of witnesses were called. There was also tendered in evidence a record of interview between the Federal Police officers investigating the relevant event on 9 December 1999. The appellant Selectrix imported, exported and manufactured various technical industrial products. One of them, the relevant product, was a gas used for refrigerant in motor cars. It appears as a substance called FR12. It was advertised by BOC Gases and used generally within the car refrigerant industry. According to the record of interview, BOC Gases was a competitor with Selectrix which was not deterred by that fact. It noted and acted upon the BOC advertisement in a trade journal. According to the BOC advertisement FR12 was fully accredited as environmentally acceptable, which statement was treated by Mr Stuckey (the C.E.O. of Selectrix) as an assurance that it was environmentally acceptable.

The Magistrate had the assistance of detailed submissions concerning the applicable legal principles in relation to the facts raised by the evidence. It appears that some time earlier there had been importation by Selectrix of a non-prohibited substance (R134A) which was not an ozone-depleting substance and in respect of which the licence required by FR12 was not required. This simply was because FR12 contains prohibited substances and R134A did not. The evidence indicated that the appellant Selectrix had ordered FR12 from a United States distributor, Stonehill Trading. The appellant…

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 Selectrix Pty Ltd v Humphrys

Details

AGLC: Selectrix Pty Ltd v Humphrys [2001] VSC 45
Case: [2001] VSC 45
Decision Date: 1 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Selectrix Pty Ltd appealed against a decision of the Magistrates' Court regarding their alleged contravention of section 13(1) of the Ozone Protection Act 1989 (Cth). The company was charged with selling goods that contained an ozone-depleting substance, in breach of the Act. The central issue in the case was whether the section created an offence of absolute liability, or one of strict liability, and if the latter, whether the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact was available, and if so, whether it had been successfully negated by the prosecution. The case hinged on the interpretation of the statutory language and the application of legal principles regarding strict liability offences and the availability of defences.

The court examined the language of section 13(1) of the Ozone Protection Act and considered whether it imposed absolute liability or strict liability on the accused. In determining this, the court referred to established legal principles concerning strict liability offences, which generally do not require proof of mens rea. However, the court also acknowledged that the common law defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact may be available in strict liability cases. The court further assessed whether the Magistrate's finding that the accused's mistake was not reasonably grounded was open to challenge, considering the evidence presented and the applicable legal standards.

In reaching its decision, the court concluded that section 13(1) of the Ozone Protection Act did indeed establish an offence of strict liability. The court held that the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact could be available in such cases, subject to the prosecution successfully disproving it. The court found that the Magistrate's determination that the accused's mistake was not reasonably grounded was supported by the evidence and consistent with legal principles. Consequently, the court upheld the Magistrate's decision and dismissed the appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal brought by Selectrix Pty Ltd was dismissed, and the conviction and penalty imposed by the Magistrates' Court remained in place. This decision confirmed the applicability of strict liability in cases under the Ozone Protection Act and upheld the availability of the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact, subject to the prosecution's ability to rebut it.

Orders