Legal Research
Cases
Williams v Douglas

Williams v Douglas

Case [1949] HCA 40 15 September 1949

Statutory Construction

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Criminal Law

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

78 CLR 521

RESPONDENT. COMPLAINANT.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Criminal Law-Possession of gold-Meaning of "possession or control"--Whether

constructive possession sufficient-Gold Buyers Act 1921-1948 (W.A.) (No. 28 of 1921-No.83 of 1948), 8. 36.

Section 36 of the Gold Buyers Act 1921-1948 (W.A.) provides that " Any

who has gold or gold matter in his possession or control may be required by

any member of the police force to satisfy him that such person came lawfully by the same he does not so satisfy such

proceedings for an offence against this Act may be taken against such person upon the information

and upon the hearing, unless such person proves to the satisfaction of the magistrate that he honestly came by the same, he shall be convicted of an offence against this Act. The said gold if proved to be or to have been in the possession of the defendant, whether in a building or elsewhere, and whether the possession thereof has been parted with by the defendant before being brought before the said court or not, shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to be in the possession of the

W., while staying at an hotel, acknowledged that he owned certain gold bars which were found in a bathroom some distance from his bedroom and which was used by all lodgers on the same floor as W.

Held that the gold bars were in W.'s "possession or control" within the meaning of the section. That expression in the section means de facto possession and actual control. De facto possession is wider than mere physical custody and will include the case where a thing has been hidden by a person (or by some other person with his knowledge) so that he can take it into

78 CLR 522

his physical custody when he wishes and SO that others are unlikely to find it except by accident.

Moors v. Burke, (1919) 26 C.L.R. 265, considered. Application for special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Full Court) refused.

APPLICATION for special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

At a court of petty sessions at Perth an information was heard whereby Frederick James Douglas charged that Garnett Williams did on 2nd March 1949 at Perth have 'gold in his possession or control and when required by Frederick James Douglas a member of the Police Force to satisfy him the said Frederick James Douglas, that the said Garnett Williams, came lawfully by such gold, failed to do SO contrary to S. 36 of the Gold Buyers Act 1921-1948."

The evidence led for the prosecution established that Williams lived at Cue which is situated some distance from Perth. He arrived in Perth on 1st March 1949 and put up at an hotel. He brought with him three gold bars of bullion weighing about sixty ounces. The complainant, who was a member of the police force, while in company with a police constable, saw Williams…

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 Williams v Douglas

Details

AGLC: Williams v Douglas [1949] HCA 40
Case: [1949] HCA 40
Decision Date: 15 September 1949

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The applicant, Garnett Williams, had been charged under section 36 of the Gold Buyers Act 1921-1948 (W.A.) with having gold in his possession or control and failing to satisfy a police officer that he had lawfully acquired it. The dispute arose when police found gold bars secreted under a bath in a communal hotel bathroom, a location some distance from Williams's room. Williams initially denied knowledge of the gold but later admitted it was his, though he refused to explain how he came by it.

The legal issues before the court were whether the gold found in the communal bathroom was in the applicant's "possession or control" within the meaning of section 36 of the Gold Buyers Act, and what constituted "possession or control" for the purposes of that section. Specifically, the court had to determine if de facto possession and actual control, as opposed to mere physical custody or exclusive possession of the location, were sufficient to establish possession or control under the Act.

The High Court, in refusing special leave to appeal, affirmed the reasoning of the Full Court of Western Australia. The Court held that "possession or control" under section 36 referred to de facto possession and actual control, which is a broader concept than physical custody. This includes situations where an item has been effectively hidden by a person, or with their knowledge, such that they can retrieve it at will and it is unlikely to be found by others except by accident. The Court found that the facts, including Williams's admission that the gold was his and that no one else was interested in it, strongly supported the inference that he had hidden the gold and retained control over it, even though the bathroom was communal. The Court considered the magistrate's dismissal of the charge to be based on a speculative hypothesis rather than a reasonable inference from the evidence.

The application for special leave to appeal was refused. The High Court did not disturb the Supreme Court's order remitting the complaint to the magistrate with a direction that possession or control had been sufficiently established, and that Williams should therefore be called upon to prove he honestly came by the gold.

Orders