Page 305 - Magistrates Conference 2019
P. 305

part played by the appellant he was indictable here for it. Further support for our
                              view is to be found in R v Smith (Donald). That was a case, concerning cannabis,

                              under s 304 of the 1952 Act, and though the issues there were quite different from

                              those here,  counsel for  the appellant very properly drew our attention to this
                              sentence  ([1973] 2 All ER at 1167,  [1973]  QB at 936) in the judgment of the

                              court delivered by Willis J: 'It was quite unnecessary to prove that the applicant
                              did anything to further the transaction in this country.'”



               C. Knowingly Harbouring Uncustomed Goods/ Knowingly Harbouring Uncustomed Goods With
               Intent to Defraud the Government

                  The offence of  “knowingly harbouring uncustomed goods”  is found  in  only  certain
                           36
               jurisdictions  throughout the region. Historically, the interpretation of section 186 of the English
               Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, in the decision in Frailey v. Charlton [1920] 1 K.B. 147, may
               have shaped what is now section  170(1)(b) of the United Kingdom’s Customs and Excise

               Management Act 1979  where “intent to defraud” is an essential ingredient. Consequently,
                                                              37
               jurisdictions that have adopted section 170(1)(b)  can be immediately distinguished on the basis
               of  the additional “intent to defraud” criteria . In this vein, the Judicial Committee of the Privy

               Council in Simmonds v. R [1997] 3 LRC 501, at page 512, enunciated:


                              “This view, as has already been said, is  in conflict with the decision of the

                              Divisional Court in Frailey v Charlton, where the Divisional Court did not, as it
                              seems from the report, have the advantage of the detailed arguments addressed to

                              their Lordships in the present case nor the analysis of  the  Jamaican Court of
                              Appeal in Barbar. Their Lordships consider the approach in the latter case to be



               36  See Belize: Section 112(1)(e) of the Customs Regulation Act, Guyana: Section 218(c) of the Customs
               Act, Jamaica: Section 210(1) of the Customs Act, St. Kitts and Nevis: Section 242(5) of the Customs Act,
               St. Lucia: Section 127(2) of the Customs (Control and Management) Act, St. Vincent and the Grenadines:
               Section 122 of the Customs (Control and Management) Act and Trinidad and Tobago: Section 213(c) of
               the Customs Act
               37   See  Antigua  and Barbuda: Section  175(1)(b)  of  the Customs (Control and Management) Act,
               Barbados: Section 104(3)(a) of the Customs Act [which is only similar to section 170(1)(b)], Dominica:
               Section 189(1)(b) of the Customs Act, Grenada: Section 179(1)(b) of the Customs Act and St. Kitts and
               Nevis: Section 185(1)(b) of the Customs Act, St. Lucia: Section 116(1)(b) of the Customs (Control and
               Management) Act and St. Vincent and the Grenadines: Section 111(1)(b) of the Customs (Control and
               Management) Act

                                                                                                 Page 15 of 21
   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310