Willey v Synan

Willey v Synan concerned an action brought by Samuel Charles Willey against Maurice Bernard Synan, the Collector of Customs for Victoria, for the return of English silver coins valued at £351 5s. and damages for their detention. Willey, the boatswain of the steamship Piako, claimed to have found the coins on board during the voyage from Dunedin to Melbourne. Upon the ship's arrival in Melbourne, the coins were seized by customs officers. Following a notice from the Collector of Customs under section 207 of the Customs Act 1901-1935, Willey commenced proceedings to recover the coins. The Collector disputed Willey's claim and asserted that the coins were forfeited to the Crown under section 229(e) of the Act.

The High Court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it needed to ascertain whether the onus of proof lay on Willey to establish his claim as the finder and possessor of the coins, particularly in light of the Collector's notice under section 207. Secondly, the Court had to consider whether, even if Willey had found the coins, he had ever acquired legal possession of them, or if possession vested in his employers, the shipowners. Finally, the Court had to decide whether, assuming Willey had possession, the coins were "satisfactorily accounted for" within the meaning of section 229(e) of the Customs Act, thereby justifying their forfeiture.

A majority of the Court, comprising Latham C.J., Rich, Dixon, and McTiernan JJ., held that the appeal should be dismissed. Latham C.J. and Dixon J. found that the onus of proving his claim that he had found and acquired possession of the coins lay upon Willey. Latham C.J. further held that the captain's report was inadmissible as evidence against the defendant, and therefore Willey had not discharged this onus. Rich and Dixon JJ. concluded that even if Willey had found the coins, he had never possessed them, with Dixon J. opining that any possession taken was that of his employers. Furthermore, Latham C.J., Dixon, and McTiernan JJ. determined that even if Willey had acquired possession, the coins were not "satisfactorily accounted for" under section 229(e) as no adequate explanation was provided for their presence on the ship, leading to their forfeiture.