Murphy v Farmer [1988] HCA 31

Murphy v Farmer [1988] HCA 31

The majority held that the word 'false' in s.229(1)(i) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) should be strictly construed to mean 'purposely or deliberately or intentionally untrue.' Ambiguous penal provisions must be construed in favour of the subject. Since the respondent's wrong answer was not intentionally false, forfeiture did not apply.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['forfeiture of Goods' "meaning of 'false' in Statute" 'penal Provisions' 'mens Rea']
['customs Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['forfeiture of Goods' "meaning of 'false' in Statute" 'penal Provisions' 'mens Rea']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether 'false' in s.229(1)(i) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) means 'intentionally untrue' or 'wrong in fact'" 'Whether forfeiture can occur when a statement is wrong but not deliberately so']

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the word 'false' in s.229(1)(i) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) should be strictly construed to mean 'purposely or deliberately or intentionally untrue.' Ambiguous penal provisions must be construed in favour of the subject. Since the respondent's wrong answer was not intentionally false, forfeiture did not apply.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']