CEO of Customs v Labrador Liquor Wholesale P/L & Ors [2001] QCA 280
[2001] QCA 280
Court of Appeal (Qld)|2001-07-20|Before: McMurdo P, Thomas JA and Byrne JSeparate reasons for judgment of each, member of the Court, Thomas JA and Byrne J concurring as to the orders made, McMurdo P dissenting, in part
McMurdo P, Thomas JA and Byrne JSeparate reasons for judgment of each, member of the Court, Thomas JA and Byrne J concurring as to the orders made, McMurdo P dissenting
Catchwords
TAXES AND DUTIES – CUSTOMS AND EXCISE – JURISDICTION AND
PROCEDURE IN CUSTOMS PROSECUTIONS – whether s 92 Evidence Act 1977
(Qld) is applicable to proceedings under the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) and
the Excise Act 1901 (Cth) – where s 92 does not apply to criminal
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
TAXES AND DUTIES – CUSTOMS AND EXCISE – JURISDICTION ANDPROCEDURE IN CUSTOMS PROSECUTIONS – whether s 92 Evidence Act 1977(Qld) is applicable to proceedings under the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) andthe Excise Act 1901 (Cth) – where s 92 does not apply to criminalproceedings - where Customs Act expressly permits prosecutions to beconducted in accordance with civil practices and procedures – where nological reasonwhy a proceeding that is essentially criminal in nature cannot beconducted using civil procedure – whether the current prosecutionsarecriminal proceedings within the meaning of the Evidence Act – wherethe matter if carried to its conclusion may result in a sentence of punishmentthen it may be characterised as criminal– where prosecution remained acriminal proceeding despite the use of civil procedure.TAXES AND DUTIES- CUSTOMS AND EXCISE – PENAL PROVISIONS – EVASION OF DUTY –PENALTIES – where unlawful failureto pay customs and excise duties– whether civil or criminal standard of proof required in prosecution
– where procedural
provision do not provide clear assistance – where
language and objectives of Act reveal an intention to punish and deter –
where in the absence of clear statutory provisions to contrary and despite the
procedural effects of s 247 Customs Act 1901 (Cth) and s 133 Excise
consideredPreston v Chief Executive Officer of Customs [2000] QCA
186
CA No 1260 of 2000, 22 May 2000, referred toRussell v Russell
(1976) 134 CLR 495, consideredScott v Geoghegan & Sons Pty Ltd
(1969) 43 ALJR 243, consideredThe King and The Federal Commissioner of
Taxation v McStay (1945) 7 ATD 527, consideredWilliams v Spautz
[1992] HCA 34
(1991-92) 174 CLR 509, consideredWitham v Holloway (1994-95) 183 CLR
525, referred toWoolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] UKHL 1
[1935]
AC 462, referred toWong v Kelly [1999] NSWCA 439
(1999) 154 FLR 200, considered
Judgment (38 paragraphs)
[1]
TAXES AND DUTIES - CUSTOMS AND EXCISE - JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE IN CUSTOMS PROSECUTIONS - whether s 92 Evidence Act1977 (Qld) is applicable to proceedings under the Customs Act1901 (Cth) and the Excise Act1901 (Cth) - where s 92 does not apply to criminal proceedings - where Customs Act expressly permits prosecutions to be conducted in accordance with civil practices and procedures - where no logical reason why a proceeding that is essentially criminal in nature cannot be conducted using civil procedure - whether the current prosecutions are criminal proceedings within the meaning of the Evidence Act - where the matter if carried to its conclusion may result in a sentence of punishment then it may be characterised as criminal - where prosecution remained a criminal proceeding despite the use of civil procedure.
[2]
TAXES AND DUTIES - CUSTOMS AND EXCISE - PENAL PROVISIONS - EVASION OF DUTY - PENALTIES - where unlawful failure to pay customs and excise duties - whether civil or criminal standard of proof required in prosecution - where procedural provision do not provide clear assistance - where language and objectives of Act reveal an intention to punish and deter - where in the absence of clear statutory provisions to contrary and despite the procedural effects of s 247 Customs Act1901 (Cth) and s 133Excise Act1901 (Cth) the standard of proof required is criminal.