Proudman v Dayman

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
CourtHigh Court
Neutral Citation[1941] HCA 28,1941-0922 HCA A
Date1941
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
70 cases
  • Giorgianni v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Chng Wei Meng v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 22 July 2002
    ...requirements. The availability of this defence was recognized in R v City of Sault Ste Maria (1978) 85 DLR 161, Proudman v Dayman (1943) 67 CLR 536 and adopted by myself in this court in M V Balakrishnan v PP [1998] 1 CLAS News 357. 18 Turning to s 43(4) of the Act, one observed that there ......
  • Ostrowski v Palmer
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 16 June 2004
    ...in this area. The very existence of the strict liability offence in the present case indicates that, to adopt the words of Dixon J in Proudman v Dayman47, the Legislature was also concerned to ‘cast on the individual the responsibility of so conducting his affairs that the general welfare w......
  • Kedah & Perlis Ferry Service Sdn Bhd; PP
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1978
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Rape in Victoria as a Crime of Absolute Liability: A Departure from Both Precedent and Progressivism
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. 76-5, October 2012
    • 1 October 2012
    ...in the contextof strict liability offences.56 The Proudman defence was recognised by the High Court in the case of Proudman vDayman (1941) 67 CLR 536.The Journal of Criminal In Proudman, the essence of this defence was expressed by Dixon J:‘As a general rule an honest and reasonable belief ......
  • The Australian Criminal Code: Time for Some Changes
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review Nbr. 37-2, June 2009
    • 1 June 2009
    ...of the necessary fault element: prosecutorial reliance on s 9.3 Mistake or ignorance of statute law is unnecessary in such a case. 84 (1941) 67 CLR 536. 85 But see CTM v The Queen (2008) 236 CLR 440, in which all members of the High Court accepted the view that absence of reasonable mistake......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT