Hough v Ah Sam [1912] HCA 78

452 HIGH COURT : 09)

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] AND AH SAM . e 4 é 'i : . RESPONDENT. —

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA,

H.C. or A. Prohibited import—Evidence of importation—Admissibility of answers a b

1912. accused to questions put to him by offcer—Guxtoms Act 1901-1910 (No. 6

nae, 1901—No. 36 of 1910), sec. 2338 (1) (c).

PerrH, Seas There is no rule that answers given by an accused person to questions put

Moe to him by an officer are primd facie inadmissible.

Griffith ©.J., i Bartana R. v. Berriman, 6 Cox C.C., 1854, explained. Higgins JJ.

In coming to a conclusion whether prohibited goods have been impo since the date of prohibition, all the circumstances of the case, includin, the demeanour, statements and conduct of the accused, must be taken int consideration.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (McMillan J.) revers

Australia. %

The respondent's premises were searched by two Customs officers, who discovered that the place was fitted up with benches such as are used by opium smokers. The officers asked the respondent if he had any opium, and he replied that he never had any. On searching, they discovered in the fireplace, among the ashes, horn container with a little opium in the bottom, and another container nearly full of fresh opium suitable for smoking. One

5CLR] OF AUSTRALIA.

where he got it, and he replied, " Singapore man bring it from steamer." e

'The respondent was prosecuted before a police magistrate on a charge of having in his possession a prohibited import, to wit, opium suitable for smoking, and was convicted. The Supreme Court (McMillan J.) quashed the conviction, on the grounds that the answers of the accused to the questions of the officer as to how he got the opium were inadmissible, and that without them there was not sufficient evidence of importation in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act 1901-1910.