Selectrix Pty Ltd v Humphrys

Selectrix Pty Ltd appealed against a decision of the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, which found them guilty of breaches of section 13(1) of the Ozone Protection Act 1989 (Cth). The company had been charged for the unlawful importation of ozone-depleting substances, specifically chlorofluorocarbons, which are banned under the Act. The dispute centred on the interpretation of section 13(1) of the Act, specifically whether it imposed an absolute or strict liability on importers of such substances. Additionally, the case examined the availability and effectiveness of the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact in relation to the charges.

The court was required to determine the correct interpretation of section 13(1) and whether it imposed absolute or strict liability on the accused. Furthermore, the court needed to examine whether the prosecution had successfully rebutted the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact. The crux of the appeal lay in the Magistrates' Court finding that the accused's mistake was not reasonably grounded, and whether such a finding was open to the Magistrates' Court on the evidence presented.

In its judgment, the court found that section 13(1) of the Ozone Protection Act 1989 (Cth) did impose strict liability on importers of banned substances. The court acknowledged that the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact could be available, but only if the mistake was genuinely held and reasonably so, given the circumstances. The court held that the Magistrates' Court's finding that the accused's mistake was not reasonably grounded was open to them based on the evidence presented. The court emphasised that a mistake of fact must be genuinely held and not one that a reasonably prudent person in the position of the accused would have realised was unlikely.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction was upheld. The court found that the Ozone Protection Act 1989 (Cth) imposed strict liability on importers of banned substances, and the Magistrates' Court's finding that the accused's mistake was not reasonably grounded was valid. Consequently, the company remained liable for the breaches of the Act.