Separate Concurring Opinion 7 G.R. No. 224469 United States, 28 a tax evasion case, the US Supreme Court ruled that the State must prove that: {1) the law imposed a duty on the defendant; (2) he knew the duty required by the law; and (3) he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty. The defendant, who was prosecuted for tax evasion and failing to file a return, believed that no tax was owing. He asserted his contention that wages are not income and that he was not a taxpayer within the meaning of the law. The US Supreme Court vacated defendant's conviction and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings. It held that in the factual .determination of knowledge and belief, the defendant must be allowed to present evidence on good faith misunderstanding of the tax law, since such defense would negate the element of knowledge. A reading of Canadian and Australian case law indicates that courts in these jurisdictions consider the aboriginal background of the accused in determining the criminality of their acts under prohibitive laws. ~ In Yanner v. Eaton, 29 the High Court of Australia upheld the dismissal of the charge against Murrandoo Yaner, a member of the Gunnamulla clan of the Gangalidda tribe of Aboriginal Australians, for taking fauna in the tribe's area without license. Yaner hunted and caught two (2) juvenile estuarine crocodiles in Cliffdale Creek in the Gulf of Carpentaria area in Queensland. He and other members of his clan ate some of the crocodile meat and froze the rest of the meat and the skins of the crocodiles. The High Court of Australia explained that the aborigines' relationship to their lands transcends the regular subjects of State regulations, viz: · Native title rights and interests must be understood as what has been called "a perception of socially constituted fact" as well as "comprising various assortments of artificially defined jural right" And an important aspect of the socially constituted fact of native title rights and interests that is recognised by the common law is the spiritual, cultural and social connection with the land. Regulating particular aspects of the usufructuary relationship with traditional land does not sever the connection of the Aboriginal peoples concerned with the land (whether or not prohibiting the exercise of that relationship altogether might, or might to some extent). That is, saying to a group of Aboriginal peoples, "You may not hunt or fish without a permit", does not sever their connection with the land concerned and does not deny the continued exercise of the rights and interests that Aboriginal law and custom recognises them as possessing. (Emphasis ours) 28 29 498 U.S. 192 (U.S. 8 January 1991). [1999] HCA 53, 07 October 1999, <http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/viewdoc/au/cri.ses/cth/HCA/l999/53.html> (visited L~n 15 August 2020).