High Court of Australia on appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria) The High Court was concerned with a charge of Bigamy. The accused believed that his former marriage was invalid and that he was lawfully entitled to the enter into the ceremony of marriage.
Held: Such a belief constituted a good defence. Dixon J said that ‘The rule accepted was that in the case alike of an offence at common law and, unless expressly or impliedly excluded, by the enactment of a statutory offence, it is a good defence that the accused is not guilty if he had an honest and reasonable belief in the existence of facts which, if they had really existed, would have made his act both legally and morally innocent’
and ‘No doubt, in the application of the principle of interpretation to modern statutes, particularly those dealing with police and social and industrial regulation, a marked tendency has been exhibited to hold that the prima facie rule has been wholly or partly rebutted by indications appearing from the subject matter or character of the legislation.’
Latham CJ, Rich, Starke, Dixon and Evatt JJ
(1937) 59 CLR 279, [1937] HCA 83, [1938] ALR 37
Austlii
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – Sweet v Parsley HL 23-Jan-1969
Mens Rea essential element of statutory Offence
The appellant had been convicted under the Act 1965 of having been concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis. This was a farmhouse which she visited infrequently. The prosecutor had conceded that she was unaware that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 September 2021; Ref: scu.653250