Bierton v Higgins [1961] HCA 41

High Court of Australia Dixon C.J. Fullagar, Kitto, Taylor and Windeyer JJ. Bierton v Higgins [1961] HCA 41

ORDER Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed. Order that the respondent pay the costs of the appeal.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgment was delivered:—

July 31 Dixon C.J., Kitto, Taylor and Windeyer JJ.

On 15th November 1960 the appellant, who was a peanut grower in the State of Queensland, was convicted before a stipendiary magistrate of an offence against the provisions of The Peanut Industry Protection and Preservation Act of 1939 Q.. The offence alleged was that the appellant, being a grower of peanuts, removed from his premises at Inverlaw near Kingaroy a quantity of peanuts that had not been graded by the Peanut Marketing Board, otherwise than for the purpose of delivery thereof to the said Board or its authorized agents by the nearest usual and practicable road or railway for grading by the said Board. Apparently the complaint was made pursuant to s. 7 (2) of the Act which provides that no person shall remove or cause to be removed from or out of any place or from or out of one portion of any place to any other portion of the same place any peanuts contrary to the Act. The removal was said to be contrary to the Act because by a proclamation made on 27th April 1940, and purporting to have been made under the provisions of s. 6 (ii) of the Act, the Governor in Council declared "that the removal from the grower's premises of any peanuts that have not been graded by the Peanut Board is and shall be permitted only for the purpose of delivery thereof to the Peanut Board or its authorized agents by the nearest usual and practicable road or railway for grading by the Board and that the removal from the grower's premises of any peanuts that have not been graded by the Board, except for the purpose aforesaid, is and shall be absolutely prohibited".