Page 298 - Magistrates Conference 2019
P. 298

29
                  The word “import”, in certain jurisdictions , means “to bring or cause to be brought within” a
               jurisdiction. Naturally, only those who actually effect the importation or cause the importation to

               occur will be captured by the offence. Interestingly, whilst the definition of “import” is fairly

               straightforward, proof of importation is a much more complex issue. In  Esook Ali v. Carlos
               Renwick  (Customs  &  Excise Officer [Mag. App. No. 81 of 2001], the Court of  Appeal of

               Trinidad and Tobago opined:


                              “Importation is not very easy to establish in a criminal case, especially having

                              regard to the nature of the goods in this case. In some cases it may be very easy to
                              establish the question of importation. But where transactions of this nature takes

                              place of items such as parrots, birds and monkeys, it would be very difficult, if not
                              impossible, to get a classic textbook case of importation. And what the Courts and

                              what the Prosecution or the Customs would rely on basically is circumstantial
                              evidence, that is to say, where the incident took place, in what circumstances and

                              a number of other factors.”


                  Further, in the decision of The Attorney General of Hong Kong v. Tse Hung-Lit [1986] A.C

               876, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council considered the effect to be given to the word
               “cause” in the kindred offence of attempting to export prohibited articles. In adopting the dicta of

               the High Court of Australia in O’Sullivan v. Truth and Sportsman Ltd. (1957) 96 C.L.R 220, the
               Board held that the word “cause”:



                              “…should be interpreted as confined to cases where the prohibited act is done on
                              the actual authority, express or implied, of the party said to have caused it or in

                              consequence of his exerting some capacity which he possesses in fact or law to

                              control or influence the acts of the other. He must moreover contemplate or desire
                              that the prohibited act will ensue.”



               29   See  Antigua and  Barbuda: Section 2(1) of the Customs  (Control and  Management Act),  Barbados:
               Section 2(1) of the Customs Act, Dominica: Section 2(1) of the Customs Act, Grenada: Section 2(1) of the
               Customs Act also includes an attempt, Guyana: Section 2 of the Customs Act, Jamaica: Section 2(1) of
               the Customs Act, St. Kitts and Nevis: Section 2 of the Customs Act also includes the contiguous zone, St.
               Lucia: Section 2 of the Customs (Control and Management) Act, St. Vincent and the Grenadines: Section
               2 of the Customs (Control and Management) Act and Trinidad and Tobago: Section 2 of the Customs Act

                                                                                                  Page 9 of 21
   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303