Willis v Burnes [1921] HCA 43

Willis v Burnes [1921] HCA 43

Under sec. 27 of the Police Offences Act 1901 (N.S.W.), the defendant must satisfy the Magistrate how he came by the property; if the Magistrate is left in doubt and not affirmatively satisfied by the explanation, the defendant should be convicted, not acquitted.

Parties
Respondent: Elias Willis; Complainant: John Hugh Burnes
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 1921
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales to High Court of Australia
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Possession of Suspected Stolen Property, Burden of Proof, Statutory Interpretation, Police Offences Act
Criminal Law Possession of Suspected Stolen Property Burden of Proof Statutory Interpretation Police Offences Act

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elias Willis

Respondent

John Hugh Burnes

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales to High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether doubt in the Magistrate’s mind as to the honesty of the defendant’s explanation entitles the defendant to acquittal under sec. 27 of the Police Offences Act 1901 (N.S.W.)
  2. 2 Whether the defendant must satisfy the Magistrate how he came by goods reasonably suspected of being stolen

Ratio Decidendi

Under sec. 27 of the Police Offences Act 1901 (N.S.W.), the defendant must satisfy the Magistrate how he came by the property; if the Magistrate is left in doubt and not affirmatively satisfied by the explanation, the defendant should be convicted, not acquitted.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • appeal dismissed with costs