Donohoe v Britz [1904] HCA 53

Donohoe v Britz [1904] HCA 53

The respondent's declaration was true in the ordinary sense and under the law in force at the time, and neither the retrospective effect of the Customs Tariff Act 1902 nor the artificial valuation rule in s.144 of the Customs Act 1901 could make his act unlawful or render him liable to prosecution for an act that was not an offence when done.

Parties
Appellant: J. T. T. Donohoe; Respondent: Peter Britz
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 1904
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Retrospective Legislation, Valuation for Customs Duty, Declaration of Value, Proprietary Medicines
Constitutional Law Customs Law Retrospective Legislation Valuation for Customs Duty Declaration of Value Proprietary Medicines

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

Parties

J. T. T. Donohoe

Appellant

Peter Britz

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent made an untrue statement in a customs declaration under s.234 of the Commonwealth Customs Act 1901
  2. 2 Whether retrospective operation of the Customs Tariff Act 1902 can create a criminal offence for acts lawful when done
  3. 3 Interpretation of s.144 and s.154 of the Commonwealth Customs Act 1901 in relation to proprietary medicines and valuation

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's declaration was true in the ordinary sense and under the law in force at the time, and neither the retrospective effect of the Customs Tariff Act 1902 nor the artificial valuation rule in s.144 of the Customs Act 1901 could make his act unlawful or render him liable to prosecution for an act that was not an offence when done.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • No order as to costs on the motion to rescind leave.