Ostrowski v Palmer [2004] HCA 30

Ostrowski v Palmer [2004] HCA 30

The respondent's mistake was not as to any element of the offence but a mistaken belief that his conduct was lawful based on incomplete information, amounting to a mistake of law, not fact. Section 24 of the Criminal Code (WA) does not apply to such a belief. Ignorance of the law, even when induced by a government official's conduct, does not afford a defence under s 24, and the case falls under s 22.

Parties
Appellant: George Peter Ostrowski; Respondent: Jeffrey Ryder Palmer
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders of the Full Court set aside; conviction reinstated; costs as agreed.
Legal Topics
Defences, Strict Liability Offences, Mistake of Fact, Mistake of Law, Officially Induced Error, Fisheries Regulation
Criminal Law Defences Strict Liability Offences Mistake of Fact Mistake of Law Officially Induced Error Fisheries Regulation

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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Peter Ostrowski

Appellant

Jeffrey Ryder Palmer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent could rely on the defence of 'mistake of fact' under s 24 of the Criminal Code (WA) to a charge of fishing for rock lobsters in a prohibited area
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief was one of fact or law
  3. 3 Effect of incomplete information or advice provided by a government official on criminal responsibility

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's mistake was not as to any element of the offence but a mistaken belief that his conduct was lawful based on incomplete information, amounting to a mistake of law, not fact. Section 24 of the Criminal Code (WA) does not apply to such a belief. Ignorance of the law, even when induced by a government official's conduct, does not afford a defence under s 24, and the case falls under s 22.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders of the Full Court set aside; conviction reinstated; costs as agreed.

Orders

  • Set aside orders 1, 2 and 3 made by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia on 7 March 2002.
  • Order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed.