Moors v Burke [1919] HCA 32

Moors v Burke [1919] HCA 32

Moors did not have actual possession of the wool at the time relevant to the charge because another Customs officer had equal right and power to access the locker, negating exclusive control required by sec. 40 of the Police Offences Act 1915 (Vict.).

Parties
Appellant: Adrian Moors; Respondent: James Burke
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 1919
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria (order Nisi to Review Conviction)
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Actual Possession, Possession of Property, Criminal Procedure
Criminal Law Actual Possession Possession of Property Criminal Procedure

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 1 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adrian Moors

Appellant

James Burke

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria (order Nisi to Review Conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had 'actual possession' of property within the meaning of sec. 40 of the Police Offences Act 1915 (Vict.)

Ratio Decidendi

Moors did not have actual possession of the wool at the time relevant to the charge because another Customs officer had equal right and power to access the locker, negating exclusive control required by sec. 40 of the Police Offences Act 1915 (Vict.).

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • order to review made absolute
  • conviction set aside