Wootten v Dickson - [2002] NSWSC 439

CITATION: Wootten v Dickson [2002] NSWSC 439

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 13085/01

HEARING DATE(S): 16 May 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 22 May 2002

PARTIES :

Alison WOOTTEN - Plaintiff
Grant DICKSON - Defendant

JUDGMENT OF: Brownie AJ at 1

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Local Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Magistrate Sweeney

COUNSEL : Mr C P O'Donnell - Plaintiff
Mr P W Neil SC - Defendant

SOLICITORS: Australian Government Solicitor - Plaintiff
Coode & Corry - Defendant

CATCHWORDS: Taxes and duties - customs and excise - importation of goods - meaning of "import". - Taxes and duties - customs and excise - importation of goods - meaning of "import" - offences - intention.

LEGISLATION CITED: Customs Act 1901
Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations

CASES CITED: Wilson v Chambers and Company Pty Limited (1926) 38 CLR 131
R v He Kaw Teh (1985) 15 A Crim R 203 at 256
Lyons v Smart (1908) 6 CLR 143 at 150
Bull (1974) 131 CLR 203
R v Kural (1987) 29 A Crim R 12 at 13
Maher v Musson (1934) 52 CLR 100 at 104

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BROWNIE AJ

22 May 2002

13085/01 Alison WOOTTEN v Grant DICKSON
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff appeals from a decision of Magistrate Sweeney, who dismissed three informations laid by the plaintiff against the defendant. Each information alleged that, in breach of the provisions of s 233(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1901 the defendant imported certain substances that were prohibited imports. The offences were said to have occurred on 12, 22 and 29 July 2000, and the substances were prohibited imports in that they were anabolic or androgenic substances, within the meaning of various items in Schedule 8, and Regulation 5H of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations.

2 Except for a question about the defendant’s state of mind, there was no dispute about the facts. The documents which became exhibits before her Worship were not in evidence before me, but the appeal proceeded on the basis that the facts were accurately stated in the written submissions lodged by the parties, dated 26 February and 29 May 2002, amplified by the transcript of the evidence in the Local Court, and by copies of the informations.

3 In July 2000 the defendant was a member of the Royal Australian Air Force, serving with the United Nations Forces in East Timor, within an organisation known as Operation Tanager. He was concerned about the need to supplement the diet that was then available to him, and ordered what he believed were products lawfully obtainable, from an entity described as Mass Quantity, located in New York. There was no ordinary postal service available in East Timor at that time, but the United Nations provided Internet facilities for persons such as the defendant. By this means he made inquiries, and then ordered the goods in question, intending them to be sent from…

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 Wootten v Dickson

Details

AGLC: Wootten v Dickson [2002] NSWSC 439
Case: [2002] NSWSC 439
Decision Date: 22 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wootten v Dickson was a decision of the High Court of Australia concerning the interpretation of the term "import" in the context of customs and excise law. The case arose from an appeal by the Commonwealth against a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The appellant, Wootten, was convicted for the importation of goods into Australia without payment of customs duty. The legal issue before the court was whether the term "import" in the relevant legislation included goods that were not physically brought into the country but were acquired by an Australian resident overseas and then brought into Australia without the payment of duty.

The court considered the ordinary meaning of the term "import" and whether the intention of the legislature was to include situations where goods were acquired overseas and subsequently brought into Australia. The majority of the court held that the term "import" in the relevant statute included goods that were acquired overseas by an Australian resident and then brought into Australia, even if the physical act of bringing the goods into the country was not performed by the resident themselves. The court found that the intention of the legislature was to prevent the evasion of customs duty by means of the acquisition of goods overseas and their subsequent importation into Australia without payment of duty.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal by the Commonwealth was allowed, and the conviction of Wootten was reinstated. The decision clarified the meaning of the term "import" in the relevant legislation and confirmed the broad scope of the legislature's intention to prevent the evasion of customs duty.

Orders