| 词条 | He Kaw Teh v The Queen |
| 释义 |
| name = He Kaw Teh v The Queen | court = High Court of Australia | image = Coat of Arms of Australia.svg | date decided = 17 April 1985 | citations = {{Cite AustLII|HCA|43|1985|litigants= |parallelcite=(1985) 157 CLR 523}} | judges = Gibbs CJ, Mason, Wilson, Brennan and Dawson JJ | prior actions = | opinions = | Majority = | dissenting = | subsequent actions = }} He Kaw Teh v R,[1] is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to intent and mens rea and the role of strict liability offences. BackgroundHe Kaw Teh, the accused was convicted of two offences under section 233B(1)(b) and (c) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) [2] by possessing and importing 2.78kg of heroin. At trial the court found that offences under these provisions were strict liability offences. The defendant maintained that he was unaware that he had the heroin in his possession (i.e. it was ‘planted’) and hence he should not be liable. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. FindingHe Kaw Teh appealed his conviction to the High Court of Australia, who found for the appellant.[1] The court found, taking precedent from Sherras v De Rutzen (1895),[3] that the prosecution needed to establish an intent in matters of significant criminality unless the presumption was rebutted. Gibbs CJ found that “it is unlikely that the Parliament intended the consequences of committing an offence so serious should be visited on a person who had no intention to do anything wrong and no knowledge that he or she was doing so.”[4]Dawson J found similarly that “mistaken belief in facts which are inconsistent with the required intent does not have to be based upon reasonable grounds. Either the accused has a guilty mind or he does not, and if an honest belief, whether reasonable or not, points to the absence of the required intent, then the prosecution fails to prove its case.”[5]Brennan J held that where the offence is governed by statute, the requisite level of mens rea is established by interpreting the words of the statute and the intention of the legislation. When the statute is silent about the requisite mens rea, there is a presumption that the highest level of mens rea is required, that being ‘intention’. However, this presumption can be rebutted through interpretation of the legislation in question in the case.[1]References1. ^1 2 {{Cite AustLII|HCA|43|1985|litigants=He Kaw Teh v R |parallelcite=(1985) 157 CLR 523 |courtname=High Court |date=11 July 1985}}. 2. ^{{cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|ca1901124|Customs Act 1901}}. 3. ^Sherras v De Rutzen [1895] 1 {{abbr|QB|Queens Bench law reports}} 918 at 921. 4. ^He Kaw Teh v R (1985) 157 CLR 523 at 529-30 per Gibbs CJ. 5. ^He Kaw Teh v R (1985) 157 CLR 523 per Dawson at 7. 4 : High Court of Australia cases|1985 in case law|1985 in Australian law|Australian criminal law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。