Poole v Wah Min Chan [1947] HCA 37

218 HIGH COURT

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

POOUM iiss Clee oes ; : InrorMant, AND

WAH MINS CHAN]. cies el) ese neem Derrenvant,

1 5 Se Sypvey, lations of "any goods" unless under licence therefor—Validity m Aug. 20. 1901-1936 (No. 6 of 1901—No. 85 of 1936), ss. 52 (g), 56, 233, 2338, | saat Customs (Import Licensing) Regulations (S.R. 1939 No. 163), regs.

pS Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations (S.R. 1934 No. 1521946 No. ct. 14.

The Customs Act 1901-1936 provides by s. 52: "The following are | eh gare? hibited imports". Then follows a list under heads (a) to (i) of y differing articles which includes: "(g) All goods the importation of may be prohibited by regulation." 'The Customs (Import Licensing) Re tions provide by reg. 3 that" the importation of any goods shall be prohil unless-—(a) a licence to import the goods is in force. . . ." —

224, distinguished.

; nd Radio Corporation Ply, Ltd. v. The Commonwealth (1938) 59 'OL R applied.

'The defendant was charged under s. 233 (1) (d) of the Customs Act |

1936 that he eer had in his possession prohibited imports, to diamonds.

information was dismissed on the ground that the informant did nc that the defendant had knowledge that the diamonds found in his were prohibited imports. 'The informant appealed to the High Coy

75 C.L.R.]_ OF AUSTRALIA.

Held, by Latham C5

without reasonable excuse of prohibited imports is in itself an offence under 8. 233 (1) (d) of the Customs Act 1901-1936.

'The Court being equally divided on the validity of the regulation on which the prosecution was based, the decision of the Court was in accordance with the opinion of the Chief Justice.

Case Starep. Upon an information laid under s. 233 of the Customs Act 1901- 1936, by John Burfitt Poole, an officer of Customs stationed at Sydney, Wah Min Chan, of 115 Storey Street, Maroubra, New South Wales, was charged that at Sydney, in the said State, on or about 16th April 1947, he did contrary to the Customs Act 1901-1936, unlawfully have in his possession prohibited imports, to wit, six hundred and thirty-four (634) diamonds whereby Wah Min Chan, the defendant, had incurred a penalty in excess of the sum of £500, but such excess was abandoned. The informant averred, inter alia, that the said diamonds were brought to Australia from parts beyond the seas subsequent to Ist March 1940, and that a licence under reg. 3 of the Customs (Import Licensing) Regulations had not been granted for the importation of the diamonds. — Section 52 of the Customs Act 1901-1936 provides that " the illowing are prohibited imports" and then follows a list under heads (a) to (') of the most heterogenous character. One of these headings is: '"(q) All goods the importation of which may be prohibited by regulation." So far as material, s. 233 of the Act provides :— (1) No person shall . . . (d) unlawfully convey or have in his possession any smuggled goods or prohibited imports or prohibited exports . . . (2) It shall not be lawful for any - person to convey or have in his possession without reasonable