Waterhouse v The King

The case of *Waterhouse v The King* concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Oswald Victor Waterhouse, had been convicted of assaulting and robbing Chong Lee of opium. The central dispute revolved around whether opium, possessed by individuals not holding a certificate to deal in poisons, could be the subject of larceny.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the provisions of sections 19 and 20 of the *Police Offences (Amendment) Act 1908* (N.S.W.) rendered opium, possessed without the requisite certificate, incapable of being the subject of larceny. Specifically, the applicant argued that possession of opium without a certificate meant the possessor had no property right in it, and therefore it could not be stolen.

Griffith C.J., delivering the judgment of the High Court, held that the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was clearly correct. The Court reasoned that despite the criminal offence created by possessing opium without a certificate, a person could still retain a right of property in the opium. This property right meant that the opium could indeed be the subject of larceny. Consequently, special leave to appeal was refused.