Filename: Tucs_v_Manley.pdf
============================================================
Page 1 (Extracted Text):
============================================================
| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
Date and Time: Thursday, 29 January 2026 4:38â¯pm AEDT
Job Number: 274172382
Document (1)
1. Tucs v Manley
Client/Matter: -None-
============================================================
Page 2 (Extracted Text):
============================================================
Tucs v Manley
CaseBase
| (1985) 40 SASR 1 | (1985) 62 ALR 460 | (1985) 83 FLR 198 | (1985) 19 A Crim R 310
| BC8561018
Tucs v Manley
(1985) 40 SASR 1; (1985) 62 ALR 460; (1985) 83 FLR 198; (1985) 19 A Crim R 310; BC8561018
Court: SASCFC
Judges: Jacobs, Matheson and Johnston JJ
Judgment Date: 15/11/1985
Catchwords & Digest
Criminal law â Offences â Drug offences â Possession of prohibited import
Held: by Jacobs and Matheson JJ, allowing an appeal from (1984) 58 ALR 217:
(i) On a prosecution under s 233B(1)(ca) of the (CTH) Customs Act 1901 for having in possession without
reasonable excuse prohibited imports which are reasonably suspected of having been illegally imported, it is not
necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused knew or himself suspected that the goods were unlawfully
imported.
The state of the accused's mind is not relevant unless a s 233n(1n) defence is raised.
(ii) The Crown does not have to prove coincidence between possession of the prohibited import and the forming of
the suspicion that the import contravened the Act.
(iii) (Johnston J dissenting) It is permissible to take hearsay evidence into account in considering whether there is a
reasonable suspicion.
(iv) It is sufficient to prove that the material in question attracted the suspicion on reasonable grounds.
Words & Phrases
cannabis resin â reasonably suspected
Cases referring to this case
============================================================
Page 3 (Extracted Text):
============================================================
Page 2 of 4
Tucs v Manley
R v Ndreka
[2020] SADC 101; BC202007250
Cited
29/7/2020
SADC
R v W, N P
[2019] SADC 143; BC201911793
Cited
30/9/2019
SADC
R v King
[2019] SADC 107; BC201814336
Cited
2/8/2018
SADC
R v Rogers
(2011) 109 SASR 307; (2011) 209 A Crim R 327; [2011] SASC 40; BC201101564
Considered
23/3/2011
SASC
Rowe v Kemper
[2009] 1 Qd R 247; (2008) 185 A Crim R 526; [2008] QCA 175; BC200804959
Cited
27/6/2008
QCA
Lewis v Spencer
(2007) 179 A Crim R 48; [2007] NSWSC 1383; BC200710563
Cited
5/12/2007
NSWSC
Hounslow v Woodward
[2007] WASC 27; BC200700433
Considered
9/2/2007
WASC
Australian Manufacturing Workers Union v Seeley
International Pty Ltd
(1998) 80 IR 253
Cited
6/3/1998
SAIRC
Ridgeway v R
(1995) 184 CLR 19; (1995) 129 ALR 41; (1995) 69 ALJR 484; [1995] 8 Leg Rep C1;
(1995) 78 A Crim R 307; [1995] HCA 66; BC9506420
Cited
19/4/1995
HCA
============================================================
Page 4 (Extracted Text):
============================================================
Page 3 of 4
Tucs v Manley
Mammone v Chaplin
(1991) 54 A Crim R 163; BC9100531
Applied
21/2/1991
SASC
Wong v R
(1990) 54 SASR 297; (1990) 49 A Crim R 184
Applied Considered
9/8/1990
SACCA
Maines v Roy
(1990) 1 WAR 508
Referred to
7/2/1990
WASC
Cases considered by this case
R v Brown
(1985) 40 SASR 29; (1985) 59 ALR 763
Cited
14/5/1985
SASC
R v Abbrederis
[1981] 1 NSWLR 530; (1981) 36 ALR 109; (1981) 51 FLR 99; (1981) 3 A Crim R 366
Considered
26/6/1981
NSWCCA
R v Rawcliffe
[1977] 1 NSWLR 219; (1977) 32 FLR 252
Cited
1/4/1977
NSWCCA
Milicevic v Campbell & Commonwealth of
Australia
(1975) 132 CLR 307; (1975) 6 ALR 1; (1975) 49 ALJR 195; BC7500021
Cited
13/6/1975
HCA
R v Tawill
[1974] VR 84; (1974) 22 FLR 284
Cited
12/9/1973
VSC
Shaaban Bin Hussien v Chong Fook Kam
United Kingdom
============================================================
Page 5 (Extracted Text):
============================================================
Page 4 of 4
Tucs v Manley
[1970] AC 942
; [1969] 3 All ER 1626; [1970] 2 WLR 441
Distinguished
7/10/1969
UKPC
McLean v Dawkins
[1930] SASR 94
Cited
2/5/1930
SASCFC
Lampard v West
[1926] SASR 293
Cited
3/9/1926
SASCFC
R v Lavelle
[1978] 2 Crim LJ 105
Distinguished
-
Legislation considered by this case
Legislation Name & Jurisdiction
Provisions
Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
s 233B, s 233B(1)(ca), s 4(1)
End of Document
Please summarise this and bring out the key legal principles found here
Based on the provided case extract from *Tucs v Manley* (1985) 40 SASR 1, the key legal principles established by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia are as follows:\n\n### **Core Issue**\nThe case concerned the interpretation of **s 233B(1)(ca) of the Commonwealth *Customs Act 1901***, which made it an offence to possess prohibited imports \"reasonably suspected\" of having been illegally imported.\n\n### **Key Legal Principles (Held by the Majority - Jacobs and Matheson JJ)**\n\n1. **Mens Rea (Mental Element) Not Required for the Offence:**\n * The prosecution **does not need to prove** that the accused knew or personally suspected that the goods were unlawfully imported.\n * The accused's state of mind is irrelevant **unless** they raise a statutory defence (e.g., under s 233B(1A), such as having a \"reasonable excuse\").\n\n2. **\"Reasonable Suspicion\" is an Objective Test:**\n * The offence is proven if the material (the goods) attracts a reasonable suspicion that it was illegally imported. This suspicion is assessed **objectively** based on the facts known to the investigating officer or the court.\n * It is **not necessary** for the prosecution to prove a precise coincidence in time between the accused's possession of the goods and the formation of the reasonable suspicion.\n\n3. **Hearsay Evidence Can Found a Reasonable Suspicion:**\n * The Court held (with Johnston J dissenting on this point) that it is permissible to take **hearsay evidence** into account when considering whether there are reasonable grounds for suspicion. The suspicion does not need to be based solely on direct, first-hand evidence.\n\n### **Summary of the Offence's Structure**\nThe decision clarifies that s 233B(1)(ca) creates a **strict liability offence** with a reverse onus defence:\n* **Prosecution's Burden:** Prove possession of the goods and that those goods were, as a matter of objective fact, \"reasonably suspected\" of being illegally imported.\n* **Accused's Burden (if raised):** To avoid conviction, the accused must establish a \"reasonable excuse\" for the possession.\n\n### **Significance**\n*Tucs v Manley* is a significant authority on the interpretation of drug possession offences under the *Customs Act*. It emphasises that the critical element is the **objective status of the goods** (as reasonably suspected imports), not the **subjective knowledge of the possessor**. This lowers the prosecution's burden and facilitates convictions for drug trafficking where direct proof of knowledge is difficult.\n\n**Case Details:** \n**Court:** Supreme Court of South Australia (Full Court) \n**Judges:** Jacobs, Matheson and Johnston JJ \n**Judgment Date:** 15 November 1985 \n**Key Catchwords:** Criminal law, drug offences, possession, prohibited import, reasonable suspicion.
Filename: Tucs_v_Manley.pdf
============================================================
Page 1 (Extracted Text):
============================================================
| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
Date and Time: Thursday, 29 January 2026 4:38â¯pm AEDT
Job Number: 274172382
Document (1)
1. Tucs v Manley
Client/Matter: -None-
============================================================
Page 2 (Extracted Text):
============================================================
Tucs v Manley
CaseBase
| (1985) 40 SASR 1 | (1985) 62 ALR 460 | (1985) 83 FLR 198 | (1985) 19 A Crim R 310
| BC8561018
Tucs v Manley
(1985) 40 SASR 1; (1985) 62 ALR 460; (1985) 83 FLR 198; (1985) 19 A Crim R 310; BC8561018
Court: SASCFC
Judges: Jacobs, Matheson and Johnston JJ
Judgment Date: 15/11/1985
Catchwords & Digest
Criminal law â Offences â Drug offences â Possession of prohibited import
Held: by Jacobs and Matheson JJ, allowing an appeal from (1984) 58 ALR 217:
(i) On a prosecution under s 233B(1)(ca) of the (CTH) Customs Act 1901 for having in possession without
reasonable excuse prohibited imports which are reasonably suspected of having been illegally imported, it is not
necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused knew or himself suspected that the goods were unlawfully
imported.
The state of the accused's mind is not relevant unless a s 233n(1n) defence is raised.
(ii) The Crown does not have to prove coincidence between possession of the prohibited import and the forming of
the suspicion that the import contravened the Act.
(iii) (Johnston J dissenting) It is permissible to take hearsay evidence into account in considering whether there is a
reasonable suspicion.
(iv) It is sufficient to prove that the material in question attracted the suspicion on reasonable grounds.
Words & Phrases
cannabis resin â reasonably suspected
Cases referring to this case
============================================================
Page 3 (Extracted Text):
============================================================
Page 2 of 4
Tucs v Manley
R v Ndreka
[2020] SADC 101; BC202007250
Cited
29/7/2020
SADC
R v W, N P
[2019] SADC 143; BC201911793
Cited
30/9/2019
SADC
R v King
[2019] SADC 107; BC201814336
Cited
2/8/2018
SADC
R v Rogers
(2011) 109 SASR 307; (2011) 209 A Crim R 327; [2011] SASC 40; BC201101564
Considered
23/3/2011
SASC
Rowe v Kemper
[2009] 1 Qd R 247; (2008) 185 A Crim R 526; [2008] QCA 175; BC200804959
Cited
27/6/2008
QCA
Lewis v Spencer
(2007) 179 A Crim R 48; [2007] NSWSC 1383; BC200710563
Cited
5/12/2007
NSWSC
Hounslow v Woodward
[2007] WASC 27; BC200700433
Considered
9/2/2007
WASC
Australian Manufacturing Workers Union v Seeley
International Pty Ltd
(1998) 80 IR 253
Cited
6/3/1998
SAIRC
Ridgeway v R
(1995) 184 CLR 19; (1995) 129 ALR 41; (1995) 69 ALJR 484; [1995] 8 Leg Rep C1;
(1995) 78 A Crim R 307; [1995] HCA 66; BC9506420
Cited
19/4/1995
HCA
============================================================
Page 4 (Extracted Text):
============================================================
Page 3 of 4
Tucs v Manley
Mammone v Chaplin
(1991) 54 A Crim R 163; BC9100531
Applied
21/2/1991
SASC
Wong v R
(1990) 54 SASR 297; (1990) 49 A Crim R 184
Applied Considered
9/8/1990
SACCA
Maines v Roy
(1990) 1 WAR 508
Referred to
7/2/1990
WASC
Cases considered by this case
R v Brown
(1985) 40 SASR 29; (1985) 59 ALR 763
Cited
14/5/1985
SASC
R v Abbrederis
[1981] 1 NSWLR 530; (1981) 36 ALR 109; (1981) 51 FLR 99; (1981) 3 A Crim R 366
Considered
26/6/1981
NSWCCA
R v Rawcliffe
[1977] 1 NSWLR 219; (1977) 32 FLR 252
Cited
1/4/1977
NSWCCA
Milicevic v Campbell & Commonwealth of
Australia
(1975) 132 CLR 307; (1975) 6 ALR 1; (1975) 49 ALJR 195; BC7500021
Cited
13/6/1975
HCA
R v Tawill
[1974] VR 84; (1974) 22 FLR 284
Cited
12/9/1973
VSC
Shaaban Bin Hussien v Chong Fook Kam
United Kingdom
============================================================
Page 5 (Extracted Text):
============================================================
Page 4 of 4
Tucs v Manley
[1970] AC 942
; [1969] 3 All ER 1626; [1970] 2 WLR 441
Distinguished
7/10/1969
UKPC
McLean v Dawkins
[1930] SASR 94
Cited
2/5/1930
SASCFC
Lampard v West
[1926] SASR 293
Cited
3/9/1926
SASCFC
R v Lavelle
[1978] 2 Crim LJ 105
Distinguished
-
Legislation considered by this case
Legislation Name & Jurisdiction
Provisions
Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
s 233B, s 233B(1)(ca), s 4(1)
End of Document
What does this mean in law? The decision clarifies that s 233B(1)(ca) creates a strict liability offence with a reverse onus defence
You are correct. The statement that *Tucs v Manley* clarifies **s 233B(1)(ca)** creates a **strict liability offence with a reverse onus defence** is a precise and accurate summary of its core legal meaning.\n\nHere is a breakdown of what that means in practical legal terms:\n\n### 1. **Strict Liability Offence**\nThis means the prosecution does **not** need to prove the accused's *mens rea* (guilty mind) regarding a central element of the offence.\n\n* **Traditional Offence:** For many crimes (e.g., theft), the prosecution must prove both the physical act (*actus reus*) and the intention to commit it (*mens rea*).\n* **Under *Tucs v Manley*:** For this specific drug possession offence, the prosecution **only needs to prove**:\n * **Physical Possession:** The accused had physical custody or control of the substance.\n * **Objective Status of the Goods:** That the substance was, as a matter of **objective fact**, a \"prohibited import\" and that there were **reasonable grounds to suspect** it had been illegally imported.\n* **Key Consequence:** The accused's personal knowledge or suspicion that the drugs were imported is **irrelevant** to proving the offence. Ignorance of the importation is not a defence at this stage. This makes the offence much easier for the Crown to prove, as they don't need to get inside the accused's mind.\n\n### 2. **Reverse Onus Defence**\nOnce the prosecution proves the physical elements above, the legal burden (the \"onus\") shifts to the accused to avoid conviction. They must prove, on the balance of probabilities, a specific statutory defence.\n\n* **Standard Onus:** In most criminal trials, the prosecution bears the burden of proving *all* elements of the offence \"beyond reasonable doubt.\"\n* **Under this Provision:** The accused must actively raise and prove they had a **\"reasonable excuse\"** for possessing the prohibited import (as per the defence available under **s 233B(1A)** of the *Customs Act*).\n* **What is a \"Reasonable Excuse\"?** This is a legal question for the court. It could include things like:\n * Possession for a genuine medical or scientific purpose.\n * Lack of knowledge that the item was a drug (though this is difficult, as ignorance of the law is usually no excuse).\n * Duress or necessity.\n* **Key Consequence:** It is not enough for the accused to simply deny knowledge. They must provide positive evidence to justify their possession. If they fail to establish a reasonable excuse, they will be convicted even if the Crown could not prove they knew the drugs were imported.\n\n### **Summary of the Legal Mechanism:**\nThe offence operates as a two-stage process:\n1. **Stage 1 (Prosecution's Case):** Prove **possession** of an item that is **objectively** a prohibited import reasonably suspected of being illegally brought into the country. **(Strict Liability)**.\n2. **Stage 2 (Accused's Response):** To avoid conviction, the accused must prove they had a **reasonable excuse** for that possession. **(Reverse Onus)**.\n\n### **Why This is a Powerful Tool for Prosecutors:**\nThis construction, as confirmed by *Tucs v Manley*, is highly favourable to law enforcement and prosecutors in drug cases because:\n* It bypasses the difficult task of proving an accused's knowledge of importation, which is often hidden or known only to high-level traffickers.\n* It places the evidentiary burden on the accused to explain their possession of the illicit substance, which can be very difficult to do convincingly.\n\nTherefore, the case is a cornerstone authority for interpreting drug importation offences in a way that emphasises **objective circumstances** over **subjective intent**, significantly lowering the barrier to securing a conviction.
You may also want to ask:
What is the height of Mars?
What is area of Bangladesh?
What is USA?
Ask your
question 
