Case Notes
two views mentioned
by
the
Full Court
is
the
correct one. Probably
the result in most cases, as
in
the
instant case, will be the same
whichever be the view adopted,
and
the
Full
Court seems to
hint
at
this.
• On
the
question of guilty
intent
the
Court was of opinion
that
the
regulation
Il
did
not
in terms "import
any
mental element neces-
sary to constitute the offence".
It
imposed a positive duty, perform-
ance of which could be excused only
by
the
defendant satisfying
the Court
that
he
had
done everything possible to ensure perform-
ance of
the
duty.
This
he
had
not done, nor
had
he
given
any
evi-
dence of a bona fide
and
reasonable belief in
the
only facts which
could exculpate him.
Here
the
Court
seems to approve the opinion
of Dixon
J.
in
Proudman v.
Dayman.u
The
Court declared
that
the regulation
did
not
admit
of a construction which would require
the
informant to prove guilty intent.
On this
matter
of
mens
rea
and
statutory offences
the
Court laid
down no definite rule,
and
merely referred to McCrae
v.
Downey,13
in which O'Bryan
J.
in
a very useful
judgment
reviews
many
of
the
cases,
and
to Proudman v. Dayman.
14
In
the
latter case Dixon
J.,
in
the course of his judgment, said
that
"as a general rule
an
honest
and
reasonable belief
in
a state of facts which, if they existed, would
make the defendant's act innocent affords
an
excuse for doing what
would otherwise be an offence"Y
Although
the present case lays
down no definite rule,
it
is
an
example of
the
modern
trend
of opinion
that
mens
rea, in the sense of a specific state of mind,
is
not
ordinarily
a necessary element in a statutory offence.
R.
HATCH
llSection
4
provided:
"Every
person
shall
ensure
that
no
contravention
of
any
of
the
provisions as
to
the
use
of
electricity
contained
in
any
advertise-
ment
...
occurs
at
these premises
...
and
in
the
event
of
any
contravention
of
any
of
the
said
provisions
occurring
such
person
shall
(unless
he
satisfies
the
Court
that
the
contravention
occurred
in
spite
of
his
having
done
every-
thing
possible to
prevent
its occurrence)
be
guilty
of
an
offence
....
"
12(1941) 67 C.L.R. 536. 13[1947] V.L.R. 194. 14supra. 15supra, 540.
CONTRACT
-COMMUNICATION
OF OFFER
ANOTHER
TICKET
CASE
MOST
of
the
contracts of everyday life are of a skeleton type into
which
the
law must.imply terms to cover matters to which
the
parties
themselves do
not
advert.
In
the so-called "ticket" cases one party
hands to
the
other,
at
the
time
of
the
transaction, a document pur-
porting to limit
the
liability of
the
former
by
modifying or excluding
