Duncan v Ellis [1916] HCA 32

Duncan v Ellis [1916] HCA 32

Knowledge or wilfulness is not necessary to constitute an offence under section 226(1)(a) of the Factories and Shops Act 1915 (Vic); strict liability applies, and it is not a defence that the defendant reasonably believed in facts which, if true, would have disproved the charge.

Parties
Appellant/informant: James Thomas Duncan; Respondent/defendant: William Ellis (trading as W. Ellis & Son)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 1916
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria (full Court) to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction ordered; nominal penalty imposed.
Legal Topics
Strict Liability Offences, Interpretation of Statutes, Minimum Wage Offences
Criminal Law Employment Law Strict Liability Offences Interpretation of Statutes Minimum Wage Offences

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Thomas Duncan

Appellant/informant

William Ellis (trading as W. Ellis & Son)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria (full Court) to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is knowledge or wilfulness required to establish an offence under section 226(1)(a) of the Factories and Shops Act 1915 (Vic)?
  2. 2 Is a reasonable mistake of fact a defence to a prosecution under section 226(1)(a)?

Ratio Decidendi

Knowledge or wilfulness is not necessary to constitute an offence under section 226(1)(a) of the Factories and Shops Act 1915 (Vic); strict liability applies, and it is not a defence that the defendant reasonably believed in facts which, if true, would have disproved the charge.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction ordered; nominal penalty imposed.

Orders

  • Judgment appealed from and order of Court of Petty Sessions discharged.
  • Defendant convicted and fined one shilling.