Page 309 - Magistrates Conference 2019
P. 309

207 of R v. Cohen, is also applicable:


                              “Another ingredient of the offence is the intent to defraud, and of this the jury

                              should be reminded, but, as in all cases where an intent to defraud is a necessary
                              ingredient, the intent must usually be inferred from the surrounding

                              circumstances. If a jury is satisfied that the accused knew, which would include a
                              case in which he had wilfully shut his eyes to the obvious, that the goods were

                              uncustomed, and he had them in his possession for use or sale, it would follow, in

                              the absence of any other circumstance, that he intended to defraud the revenue.
                              That there may be cases where the  circumstances would negative the intent is

                              possible, but, ordinarily speaking, it is, indeed, difficult to see how it could be
                              found he did not intend to defraud the revenue, certainly in such a case as the

                              present, where the appellant not only had the goods in his possession for the
                              purpose of selling, but told lies to the officers when challenged on the matter.”



               D. Making a False Declaration/Declaration Untrue in Any Material Particular
                                        39
                  In certain jurisdictions , the offence of making a false declaration/declaration untrue in any
               material particular, like the offence of importing a prohibited good, does not require mens rea as
               an  ingredient  to constitute the offence.  In these jurisdictions, the  decisions  of  the Judicial

               Committee of the Privy Council in  Patel v. Comptroller of Customs [1965]  3 All ER 593
               and Comptroller of Customs v. Western Lectric Co. Ltd [1965] 3 All ER 599, or the Court of

               Appeal in  Attorney General’s Reference  (No. 3 of 1975) [1976] 2 All  ER 798  is applicable

                                                                            40
               depending on the wording of the section. In other jurisdictions , the requirement for knowledge
               exists and the offence  is therefore  more  closely  related  to section 301(3) of the United

               Kingdom’s Customs and Excise Act 1952, which was discussed in Attorney General’s Reference

               (No. 3 of 1975).


               39  See the Bahamas: Section 265(1) of the Customs Management Act, Barbados: Section 245(a) of the
               Customs Act,  Belize: Section  59  of  the Customs  Regulation Act,  Guyana:  Section 217(1)(a) of the
               Customs Act,  Jamaica: Sections 209(1)(a)(i) of the Customs Act,  St. Lucia:  Section 113(1)(a) of the
               Customs (Control and Management) Act and Trinidad and Tobago: Section 212(a) of the Customs Act
               40   See  Antigua and  Barbuda: Section  172  of the Customs (Control and  Management) Act,  Dominica:
               Section 186(1)(a)  of the  Customs Act,  Grenada: Section 176(1)(a)  of the Customs Act,  St. Kitts and
               Nevis: Section 182(1)(a) of the Customs Act and St. Vincent and the Grenadines: Section 108(1)(a) of the
               Customs (Control and Management) Act

                                                                                                 Page 19 of 21
   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   314