Sternberg v R - [1953] HCA 15

FoilFofi Foil

D ist

M in o a ie v A ppf

Foil

L e e V

M inogue v

M utvhy V

L e e 6c A rcher S titt

V C B I

^ n lP e a r jo n

« n W l l9 8 7 ]

A n d erso n

Soc ia l F arm er

V A nderson;

C onstiuctions

T a J f t(N C ) 18A L R 5 7 5

Security

v f i T c i ®

A L R 691

C -G o f

E x parte

407

S a lvona

Custom s

A n d erso n

325

A L D 289

|^W 87J2Q dR

^ 4 4 3

Foil

Foil Trade

Cons

N n l Pearson M use I'll VC

P fficticcs

& C o Pty L td V

M iir lin (200.1)

£o 'nn iission

130 FCR 546

Pon Berg

iS,L

646

HIGH COUET

[1963.

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

STEKNBEEG . A ppl ic a n t

;

AGAINST

THE QUEEN

E e s p o n d e n t .

H. C. OF A.

Customs—Offence—A!on-genuine invoice—False entry—Declaration— Belief that

1953. contents true—Liability for acts of agent— Entry ”—Prosecution—Intervention by High Court— Customs Act 1901-1947 {No. 6 of 1901—No. 54 of 1947),

S y d n e y , ss. 155, 234

{d) (e).

April 17.

Section 234 (d) of the Customs Act 1901-1947 is as follows :—“ No person Dixon C.J., Webb and shall— . . . ( d ) Make any entry which is false in any particular ” .

K itto

Held that this section makes it an offence to enter goods by an entry which in any particular is contrary to fact.

Special leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales : Ex parte Sternberg ; Re Maher (1952) 53 S.R. (N.S.W.)

199; 70 W.N. 127, refused.

A ppl ic a t io n for special leave to appeal from tlie Court of Criminal

Appeal of New SoutE Wales.

On 29tE September 1948 one, Falstein, was convicted in a court of summary jurisdiction upon six charges under s. 234 of the Customs Act 1901-1947. That section provides, inter alia, that “ No person shall . . . (c) Prepare pass or present any document purporting to be a genuine invoice which is not in fact a genuine invoice ; {d) Make any entry which is false in any particular ; (e) Make in any declaration or document produced to any officer any statement which is untrue in any particular or produce or deliver to any ofiicer any declaration or document containing any such statement . . . ” An appeal by Falstein from his conviction was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales, and the decision of the magistrate remained undisturbed.

In July 1948…

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 Sternberg v R

Details

AGLC: Sternberg v The Queen [1953] HCA 15
Case: [1953] HCA 15
Decision Date: 17 April 1953

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Sternberg against a conviction for making a false declaration concerning goods imported into Australia. The prosecution alleged that Sternberg, through his agent, had presented an invoice to customs that was not a genuine invoice, thereby contravening provisions of the *Customs Act 1901-1947*. The central dispute revolved around Sternberg's knowledge and intent regarding the falsity of the invoice and the declaration made on the basis of it.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the prosecution had established that the invoice was not genuine, and whether Sternberg could be held liable for the actions of his agent in presenting the false invoice and making the declaration. Specifically, the Court had to determine the mens rea required for the offence, particularly in relation to the belief of the declarant that the contents of the declaration were true, and the extent to which an importer is responsible for the acts of their agent in customs matters.

The Court reasoned that the offence required proof that the invoice was not genuine and that the declaration was false. It further held that an importer could be held liable for the false declaration made by their agent, even if the importer themselves did not have direct knowledge of the falsity, provided the agent was acting within the scope of their authority. The Court emphasised that the intention of the declarant, in this instance the agent, was a crucial element, and that a genuine belief in the truth of the declaration would be a defence. However, the evidence presented did not establish such a genuine belief on the part of the agent.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction.

Orders