Willis v Burnes [1921] HCA 43

Bir Bex. Fares

ir OF AUSTRALIA. ou

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

RESPONDENT. CoMPLAINANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

ice Offences Act 1901 (N.S.W.) (No. 5 of 1901), sec. 27— ew

Police Offences (Amendment) Act 1908 (N.S.W.) (No. 12 of 1908), sec. 11. Sybex, Nov See. 27 of the Police Offences Act 1901 (N.S.W.) (replaced by see, I of — ——

the Police Offences (Amendment) Act 1908) provides that Whosocrer being KD" 64, charged before a justice with (a) having anything in his custody ; or (b) smd Star Jmowingly having anything in the custody of another person ; ot (¢) know.

ingly having anything in a house, building, . . . or other place,

eter resecra iy cepted of being stoke ocemllrwfolly obtatant

does not give an account to the satisfaction of such justice how he came by

the same, shall be lable to a penalty not exceeding ten pound oF to imprison-

'ent for a term not exceeding three months."

Hel that whore the Crown has established that the defendant knowingly was Inposeion of certain property and that that property might reasonably be 'Suspected of having been stolen, the onus is upon the defendant of satisfying the justice that he came by the property honesty, and tht that onus it not charged it the justice nlf in doubt as to whether th defendant come by the property honestly.

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Wade J.) + Burn v. Willis, 38 N.8.W.W.N., 42, affirmed.

H.C. oy 4. Appear from the Supreme Court of New South Wales, ~

Was

Burnes.

HIGH COURT (i921,

At the Police Court at Werris Creck, before a Police Magistrate, an information was heard whereby John Hugh Burnes charged that Elias Willis did knowingly have a quantity of rabbit-skins ina certain building, which rabbit-skins " may be reasonably suspected of being stolen." 'The Magistrate, having dismissed the information, on the application of the complainant stated a case for the opinion of the Supreme Court in which, after setting out the above facts and the evidence, he said :—* The proceeding was under see. 27 (¢) of the Police Offences Act 1901. It was proved to my satisfaction that the defendant on the day and at the place charged did know- ingly have a quantity of rabbit-skins in a certain building, situate at Henry Street, Werris Creek, in the State of New South Wales, — which said rabbit-skins were reasonably suspected of being stolen, And thereupon 1 called upon the defendant to give an account to my satisfaction how he came by the same. The defendant then gave an explanation which, 1 thought, might reasonably be true, although I was not convinced that it was true. A doubt was thus left in my mind as to whether or not the defendant honestly came by the same, {I held that the defendant was entitled to the benefit of that doubt, and dismissed the information. 'The question for the opinion of the Court is whether my said determination was erroneous in point of law."