Page 301 - Magistrates Conference 2019

catch-all subject matter of “the laws and restrictions of the Customs relating to the importation,
unloading, warehousing, delivery, removal, loading and exportation of goods.”, which likely

also includes the subject matter of “any prohibition or restriction in force…”.
Interestingly, it is important to note that section 116(2) of the Customs (Control and

Management) Act introduces the additional words “fraudulent intent” and omits the word

“knowingly” in St. Lucia, sections 100 and 104(3)(c) of the Customs Act in Barbados omits the
word “knowingly” and in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, section 111(2) of the Customs

(Control and Management) Act departs from the well understood wording and substitutes “with

fraudulent intent in relation to any goods, is any way concerned in an evasion”. Importantly, an
examination of the law on these offences, set out below, addresses the various subject matter

aforementioned and therefore is meant to provide a more holistic and practical approach to
appreciating the elements of the offences.

In the decision of R v. Hussain [1969] 2 All ER 1117 at page 1119, the Court considered the
effect of the word “knowingly” in relation to the offences and opined:

“It seems perfectly clear that the word “knowingly” in s 304 is concerned with
knowing that a fraudulent evasion of a prohibition in respect of goods is taking

place. If, therefore, the accused knows that what is on foot is the evasion of a
prohibition against importation and he knowingly takes part in that operation, it

is sufficient to justify his conviction, even if he does not know precisely what kind

of goods are being imported. It is, of course, essential that he should know that
the goods which are being imported are goods subject to a prohibition. It is

essential he should know the operation with which he is concerning himself is an
operation designed to evade that prohibition and evade it fraudulently. But it is

not necessary that he should know the precise category of the goods the

importation of which has been prohibited.”

Given that the dicta citied above in R v. Hussain has been subsequently approved and applied by
the House of Lords in R v. Taaffe [1984] 1 All ER 747 and R v. Forbes [2001] 4 All ER 97, the

import of the word “knowingly” in the offences is well established.

Trinidad and Tobago: Section 213(e) of the Customs Act

Page 11 of 21