White v Ridley [1978] HCA 38

White v Ridley [1978] HCA 38

A person who sets in train the commission of a crime through an innocent instrument remains liable for completion of the criminal act unless they give timely and sufficiently clear countermand and take all reasonably possible steps to prevent the crime. In this case, the applicant did not do all he reasonably could (failing to inform the airline of the criminal contents) and so remained liable for importation of cannabis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal; Criminal Appeal / High Court Review Following Conviction and Appeals in Lower Courts
Outcome
Application for special leave granted; appeal dismissed (majority); One judge would have allowed the appeal for procedural insufficiency.
Legal Topics
['importation of Prohibited Substances' 'criminal Responsibility Via Innocent Agency' 'withdrawal or Countermand of Criminal Instruction' 'mens Rea and Coincidence With Act' 'procedural Requirements on Appeal by Way of Case Stated']
['criminal Law'] ['importation of Prohibited Substances' 'criminal Responsibility Via Innocent Agency' 'withdrawal or Countermand of Criminal Instruction' 'mens Rea and Coincidence With Act' 'procedural Requirements on Appeal by Way of Case Stated']

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

Application for Special Leave to Appeal; Criminal Appeal / High Court Review Following Conviction and Appeals in Lower Courts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a person who sets in motion a process of importation via an innocent instrument (carrier) is criminally liable if they later attempt to countermand the importation before completion.' 'What constitutes an effective withdrawal or countermand of instructions to an innocent agent so as to absolve the instigator from criminal responsibility.' 'Whether the stated case contained sufficient factual findings to support conviction for importation of a prohibited substance.']

Ratio Decidendi

A person who sets in train the commission of a crime through an innocent instrument remains liable for completion of the criminal act unless they give timely and sufficiently clear countermand and take all reasonably possible steps to prevent the crime. In this case, the applicant did not do all he reasonably could (failing to inform the airline of the criminal contents) and so remained liable for importation of cannabis.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave granted; appeal dismissed (majority); One judge would have allowed the appeal for procedural insufficiency.

Orders

  • ['Special leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']