Hughes v Steel [1908] HCA 21

Hughes v Steel [1908] HCA 21

It is not necessary for the prosecution, in order to obtain a conviction under the Public Health Act 1902 (NSW), to prove that the analyst complied with the requirements of section 81 regarding the division and retention of the sample. The production of a certificate under section 82 is sufficient evidence of the analysis and identity of the article; failure to comply with section 81 may be raised as a defence by the defendant, but does not affect admissibility of the certificate.

Parties
Appellant; Complainant: Hughes; Respondent; Defendant: Steel
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 1908
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision of Sly Acting-J reversed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Analyst's Certificate, Statutory Compliance in Prosecutions for Adulterated Food or Liquor, Evidentiary Requirements Under Public Health Act 1902 (nsw)
Public Health Law Evidence Admissibility of Analyst's Certificate Statutory Compliance in Prosecutions for Adulterated Food or Liquor Evidentiary Requirements Under Public Health Act 1902 (nsw)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hughes

Appellant; Complainant

Steel

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is it necessary for the prosecution to prove, in addition to production of an analyst's certificate under section 82 of the Public Health Act 1902 (NSW), that the analyst complied with the division and retention requirements of section 81?

Ratio Decidendi

It is not necessary for the prosecution, in order to obtain a conviction under the Public Health Act 1902 (NSW), to prove that the analyst complied with the requirements of section 81 regarding the division and retention of the sample. The production of a certificate under section 82 is sufficient evidence of the analysis and identity of the article; failure to comply with section 81 may be raised as a defence by the defendant, but does not affect admissibility of the certificate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision of Sly Acting-J reversed

Orders

  • Order appealed from discharged
  • Case remitted to the magistrate for determination