Symons v Schiffmann

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Court of General Sessions of Victoria. The appeal arose from a conviction of Leonard Peter Schiffmann in the Court of Petty Sessions for interfering with goods subject to the control of the Customs, contrary to the *Customs Act 1901-1914*. Schiffmann appealed this conviction to the Court of General Sessions, which allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, subsequently stating a case for the High Court. The informant was Samuel Symons, Acting Collector of Customs.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the Chairman of the Court of General Sessions was correct in quashing the conviction and whether he was correct in holding that the prosecution, having elected to call evidence, was not entitled to rely on the provisions of section 255 of the *Customs Act 1901-1914*. Section 255 provided that averments in the information were deemed proven in the absence of contrary proof.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, reasoned that the evidence presented by the prosecution, which indicated the goods were imported, duty unpaid, not delivered to the importer, and found in the defendant's possession about a month later, did not conclusively establish an interference with the goods while under the control of the Customs. The Court applied the principle from *Adelaide Steamship Co. v. The King* that section 255 of the *Customs Act* applies only to pure allegations of fact and not to conclusions of mixed law and fact. The allegation of "interference" was considered a mixed question of law and fact. Furthermore, the Court held that section 255 had no application where the prosecutor elected to present actual facts to the court, as had occurred in this instance. As the facts presented failed to satisfy the Chairman of the defendant's guilt, and section 255 was inapplicable, the conviction could not stand. The Court expressed no opinion on whether the case was properly brought as an appeal.