Myerson v Collard and the Commonwealth Informant and Prosecutor [1918] HCA 39

Myerson v Collard and the Commonwealth Informant and Prosecutor [1918] HCA 39

Mens rea is not required for an offence against Reg. 12; 'belonging to' in Reg. 12 means beneficial ownership; evidence did not satisfactorily prove that Mrs. Collard had beneficial ownership of the seized goods at the time of seizure, so regulation was not infringed.

Parties
Appellant: Emanuel Myerson; Respondent: Elizabeth Marion Collard; Respondent: The Commonwealth
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 1918
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Court of Quarter Sessions of New South Wales to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.
Legal Topics
War Precautions, Distress for Rent, Hire Purchase Agreements, Regulatory Interpretation
Criminal Law Military Law War Precautions Distress for Rent Hire Purchase Agreements Regulatory Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emanuel Myerson

Appellant

Elizabeth Marion Collard

Respondent

The Commonwealth

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Court of Quarter Sessions of New South Wales to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is mens rea required to constitute an offence against Reg. 12 of the War Precautions (Active Service Moratorium) Regulations 1916?
  2. 2 Does 'belonging to' in Reg. 12 mean beneficial ownership or any possessory interest?
  3. 3 Was ownership of the seized chattels by Mrs. Collard proved at the relevant time?

Ratio Decidendi

Mens rea is not required for an offence against Reg. 12; 'belonging to' in Reg. 12 means beneficial ownership; evidence did not satisfactorily prove that Mrs. Collard had beneficial ownership of the seized goods at the time of seizure, so regulation was not infringed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.

Orders

  • Conviction quashed.
  • Money paid into Court to be repaid to the appellant.