Hill v Donohoe [1911] HCA 38

Hill v Donohoe [1911] HCA 38

As construed, sec. 233B(c) requires knowledge by the accused that goods were imported unlawfully; with such construction, it is not unconstitutional. The evidence supported the inference that the accused knew the unlawful importation.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Edgar Hill; Respondent: John Thomas Tamplin Donohoe
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 1911
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction in Quarter Sessions (special Leave Granted)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Possession of Prohibited Imports, Evidence of Importation, Validity of Statute
Criminal Law Customs Law Constitutional Law Possession of Prohibited Imports Evidence of Importation Validity of Statute

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edgar Hill

Appellant

John Thomas Tamplin Donohoe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal From Conviction in Quarter Sessions (special Leave Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sec. 233B(c) of the Customs Act 1910 is unconstitutional as applied to possession of prohibited imports
  2. 2 Whether knowledge of the character and importation in contravention of the Act is an element of the offence
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence of importation and knowledge by the accused

Ratio Decidendi

As construed, sec. 233B(c) requires knowledge by the accused that goods were imported unlawfully; with such construction, it is not unconstitutional. The evidence supported the inference that the accused knew the unlawful importation.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • appeal dismissed