Taylor v Thorn [1932] HCA 48; (1932) 47 CLR 148 (23 September 1932)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Taylor Informant, Appellant; and Thorn Defendant, Respondent.

H C of A

23 September 1932

Gavan Duffy C.J., Rich, Starke, Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ.

Coppel, for the informant, to move the order absolute.

C. Gavan Duffy, for the respondent,

The following judgments were delivered:—

Gavan Duffy C.J.

In this case we all think the appeal should be dismissed. The Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the postman had not in his mind the purpose of delaying the letter in question, and the evidence justifies that conclusion. We think sec. 109 is aimed at cases where persons employed by or under the Department or in the conveyance of mails have for their object the delay or detention of a letter or other postal article and act in pursuance of that object.

Evatt J.

I should like to add that, in order to prove the offence of wilfully delaying a postal article, it is not necessary to prove any intention of interfering or tampering with the article.

Order nisi discharged.

Solicitor for the appellant, W. H. Sharwood, Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth.

Solicitor for the respondent, N. H. Sonenberg.