Williams v Douglas [1949] HCA 40

Williams v Douglas [1949] HCA 40

Special leave was refused because the case turned on a factual inference as to whether the applicant had hidden, or knew of the hiding place of, the gold, which was not a proper basis for special leave; in any event, the Full Court's inference that the applicant had de facto possession or actual control of the gold was preferable, and s. 36 required no more than such de facto possession or actual control.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal in Proceedings Concerning an Offence Under S. 36 of the Gold Buyers Act 1921 1948 W.a. / High Court Application for Special Leave to Appeal From an Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia
Outcome
Application for special leave refused.
Legal Topics
['possession or Control of Gold' 'de Facto Possession' 'constructive Possession' 'unexplained Possession' 'special Leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'statutory Interpretation' 'appellate Procedure'] ['possession or Control of Gold' 'de Facto Possession' 'constructive Possession' 'unexplained Possession' 'special Leave to Appeal']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal in Proceedings Concerning an Offence Under S. 36 of the Gold Buyers Act 1921 1948 W.a. / High Court Application for Special Leave to Appeal From an Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the words "possession or control" in s. 36 of the Gold Buyers Act 1921-1948 W.A. refer to de facto possession and actual control rather than constructive possession.' 'Whether the evidence sufficiently established that the applicant had possession or control of the gold hidden under the bath.' 'Whether the factual inference drawn by the Full Court justified a grant of special leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave was refused because the case turned on a factual inference as to whether the applicant had hidden, or knew of the hiding place of, the gold, which was not a proper basis for special leave; in any event, the Full Court's inference that the applicant had de facto possession or actual control of the gold was preferable, and s. 36 required no more than such de facto possession or actual control.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for special leave refused.']