Page 303 - Magistrates Conference 2019
P. 303

necessity for the prosecution to prove acts of deceit practised on a customs officer
                              in his presence.”



               In the Trinidad and Tobago Court of Appeal decision of  Azard Khan  (Customs and Excise
               Officer) v. Bobby Ashram Sanhai and Glen Mulchansingh [Mag. App. No. 36 of 2015] the Court,

               after considering the cases of Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 1981), R v. Panayi and
               Karte [1989] 1 W.L.R 187 and R v. Zlatic (1993) 2 S.C.R 29, opined at paragraph 34 that:



                              “The Magistrate, therefore, had to examine the evidence that there was some
                              dishonest intent in the agreement between the first and second respondents and

                              the dishonesty must have been intended to “evade the laws and  restrictions of
                              customs relating to the delivery of goods”.  The Magistrate was of the view,

                              essentially, that “dishonest conduct” had  not been established on the
                              prosecution’s case and one could well understand why he may have done so since

                              the evidence before him was that there was a promise to pay the same day, that

                              promise was fulfilled and there was nothing to indicate on the evidence that there
                              was a deliberate intention that delivery of the goods be taken before the payment

                              was made. The agreement was that the first respondent would sign the delivery
                              note before payment. There was no evidence that the agreement contemplated that

                              the delivery would actually be effect before payment. It might have been different

                              if the second respondent, who negotiated  the impugned compromise had
                              attempted to take delivery himself before the duties were paid. That would smack

                              of dishonesty.”


                  Finally, steps taken abroad in connection with a fraudulent evasion or attempt at fraudulent

               evasion can be the subject of proceedings in the country where those acts were directed. In  R v.
               Wall [1974] 2 All ER 245, the Court enunciated:


                              “So here there is one offence, that of being knowingly concerned in fraudulent

                              evasion on 17 February 1973, and just as in R v Millar the part played by the
                              company was played earlier and in another country, so here if that was the only



                                                                                                 Page 14 of 21
   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308