Criminal Law—Criminal act—Commission—Intent—Cause—Innocent agent—Liability of principal—Attempt by principal to withdraw—Whether effective—Arrangement for airline to carry package containing prohibited import to Australia—Carrier ignorant of contents—Instruction to cancel arrangement for carriage—Contents of package not disclosed to carrier—Instruction ineffective—Whether timely countermand of original request—Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s. 233B (1) (b).
Decisions
October 5 The following written judgments were delivered: - GIBBS J. The applicant was convicted in a magistrate's court of Victoria on a charge of importing into Australia a prohibited import, namely a quantity of cannabis, contrary to s. 233B (1) (b) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth), as amended. He was sentenced to four months' imprisonment. An appeal to the County Court of Victoria having been dismissed, a further appeal by way of case stated was brought to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria. That appeal also was dismissed and the applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. (at p345)
2. The facts set out in the case stated, so far as it is necessary to repeat them, are as follows. On 30th September 1976 the applicant, in Singapore, delivered to Singapore Airlines a box for consignment to Australia. The box contained a stereo receiver, inside which, unknown to Singapore Airlines, the applicant had concealed a quantity of cannabis. On the same day the applicant left Singapore by air for Sydney. On his arrival in Sydney at about 8 a.m. on 1st October 1976 he was searched by customs officials, who found that he was in possession of a document which evidenced the consignment of the box, and who questioned him about the document. The applicant left Sydney by air and arrived in Melbourne at about 9.30 a.m. on the same day. Being not unnaturally apprehensive as a result of the search and the questioning, he instructed Ansett Airlines to send a signal to Singapore to cancel the delivery of the box. This instruction was given at some time between 10 a.m. and 9 p.m. that day. A telex message (Exhibit Q) was sent to Singapore Airlines at sometime between 1 p.m. and 9 p.m. (Melbourne time) on 1st October 1976, asking the airline not to send the box to Australia but to hold it for collection in Singapore. The telex was marked "urgent", but it did not inform the airline that the box contained a prohibited import. In reply a telex message was sent from Singapore at about 11.30 p.m. (Melbourne time), saying that the message from Australia had been received too late for action. In fact a Singapore Airlines jet, which left Singapore about half an hour before the telex message was sent from Singapore, carried the box to Australia. The case stated by the County Court judge contained the following paragraph which it is necessary to quote in full: "10. At the time of the receipt of…
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 White v Ridley
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
White v Ridley [1978] HCA 38
Case
[1978] HCA 38
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered the appeal in *White v Ridley*. The dispute concerned the validity of a notice of intention to exercise a power of sale under a mortgage, which had been served on the respondent, Mr. Ridley, who was a bankrupt. The appellant, Mr. White, sought to exercise the power of sale over certain land owned by Mr. Ridley.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a notice of intention to exercise a power of sale under a mortgage, which was served on a bankrupt mortgagor, was a valid notice for the purposes of the relevant legislation. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the bankruptcy of the mortgagor affected the validity of the notice and the subsequent exercise of the power of sale.
The Court held that the notice served on Mr. Ridley was invalid. The reasoning was that upon bankruptcy, the property of the bankrupt vests in the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy. Consequently, any notice required to be served on the mortgagor in relation to the mortgaged property must be served on the Official Trustee, not the bankrupt individual. The Court applied the principle that a notice served on a party who no longer has the legal interest in the property, and who is not the proper representative of that interest, is ineffective.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the lower court that the notice was invalid and therefore the subsequent sale was void.