Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
| Date | 01 June 1998 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201839806200305 |
| Published date | 01 June 1998 |
| Author | JA Coutts |
| Subject Matter | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF
THE
PRIVY COUNCIL
PROOF OF INTENT IN STATUTORY OFFENCE
Simmonds v R
The importation of motor vehicles into Jamaica requires a licence from
the Board of Trade. Such vehicles are therefore 'restricted' goods within
the list of offences created by s 210(1) of the Customs Act of Jamaica,
which institutes, inter alia, the offence of knowingly harbouring or keeping
prohibited, restricted or uncustomed goods. The applicants for leave to
appeal to the Privy Council in Simmonds v R
[1998]
2 WLR 145 were
prosecuted under that section in respect of two motor cars found in their
possession. Their defence was that they did not possess the mens rea
required to support a conviction. They did not dispute that they knew
what the goods were or that they knew that they were restricted goods
which had been imported without a licence. The defence, however, was
that the section dealt with a number of instances of wrongdoing and was
so drafted that the onus was placed on the prosecution to prove that
anyone prosecuted under the section intended to deprive the revenue of
any duties due on the goods or to evade any prohibition or restriction
imposed on any act dealt with in the section. The magistrate had made no
finding of the appellant's having such intent (to avoid the duty or evade
the restriction). The appellant claimed that in the absence of such a finding
he could not be convicted of any offence in the subsection. The prosecution
contended that there were five separate and distinct categories or types of
wrongdoing set out in the subsection and that it was necessary to keep
each distinct from the others, as each had its own form of required mens
rea. The Act created the offences of
(l)
importation, (2) unloading,
(3) knowingly harbouring, (4) knowingly acquiring or carrying with intent
to defraud the revenue or evade prohibition or restriction, and (5) being
knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of dues or restrictions. The
prosecution's argument was that this particular intent (to evade dues or to
evade restrictions or prohibitions) is required only in the case of offence
in group 4 (above). The appellant argued that it was an error to divide up
the section in this way and to restrict the required intent to one only of
the groups of offences named in the section. His claim was that the same
intent had to be proved in the case of all the offences mentioned, so that,
in particular it would apply equally to any case of alleged harbouring of
restricted goods. The Board observed that, there being no distinction
drawn between the offences of importation, unloading and harbouring
(for this purpose), that argument would have the consequence that all
these offences could be committed only on proof of the intent insisted on
by the appellant.
This was not the first time that this argument had been advanced in
England, for s 210 of the Jamaican Customs Act virtually repeats, for
present purposes, the terms of s 186 of the Customs Consolidation Act
256
To continue reading
Request your trial