Patel v Comptroller of Customs
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Judgment Date | 1965 |
| Year | 1965 |
| Date | 1965 |
Crime - Mens rea - Statutory offence - False customs entry - No intention to deceive - Whether offence constituted -
The appellant imported from Singapore into Fiji a quantity of corriander seed, which was shipped in bags, and correctly engrossed the Customs Import Entry Form A in accordance with the particulars contained in the invoice referable to the purchase of the seed. On investigation at arrival, five bags were found each to be contained in an outer bag marked with the appellant's trade name, but the inner bags had written on them: “Alberdan/A.D. 4152/Corriander Favourite Singapore” and at the base of them the legend “produce of Morocco.” In the import entry form the country of origin was stated to be India. The appellant was charged with making a false declaration in a customs import entry produced to an officer of customs contrary to section 166 of the Fiji Customs OrdinanceF1 in that in respect of the five bags instead of declaring the origin of the seed to be Morocco he declared it to be India.
The magistrate found that there was no mens rea or carelessness on his part, and he acquitted the appellant. The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the prosecutor and convicted the appellant. On appeal:—
Held, allowing the appeal, (1) that, on the true construction of section 116, it was an absolute offence to make any false customs entry, and, therefore, mens rea was not a necessary ingredient of the offence with which the appellant was charged, and the fact that the alleged false entry was made without any intention to deceive the customs authorities afforded no defence (post, pp. 364G–365A).
Semble. Not all the offences contained in section 116 would be constituted unless mens rea were established (post, p. 363C–F).
(2) That the only evidence purporting to show that the entry was false was the legend “produce of Morocco” written on the bags; and the words from an evidential point of view were inadmissible against the appellant as hearsay; the list of exceptions to the hearsay rule could not be extended to include such things as labels or markings (post, p. 365C–F).
(3) That the words “the place whence such goods were brought” in section 152 should be construed in their natural meaning as the place whence they were brought by the importer and were not apt to include some other place from which they might previously have been brought or originally produced. Consequently, no burden was cast on the appellant by the section that would necessitate remission of the case for further consideration (post, pp. 366E–367A).
APPEAL (No. 52 of 1964) from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Fiji (Appellate Jurisdiction) (Knox-Mawer Ag.J.) (March 18, 1964) by special leave to appeal whereby the appeal of the respondent, the Comptroller of Customs, from a decision of the Acting Senior Magistrate of Suva (October 21, 1963) acquitting the appellant, Joitabhai s/o Khodabhai Patel, of making a false declaration in a customs import entry was allowed.
The following statement of facts is taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. The appellant was charged with making a false declaration in a customs import entry produced to an officer of customs contrary to section 116 of the Customs Ordinance (Cap. 166) in that in respect of five bags of corriander seed which arrived at Suva on August 25, 1963, instead of declaring the origin of that seed to be Morocco he declared it to be India. The evidence showed that the appellant had completed the form in which the country of origin of the seeds was given as India. The magistrate who acquitted the appellant found (a) that the appellant ordered the corriander seed from Singapore; (b) that the bags which contained the corriander seed were shipped from Singapore; (c) that the appellant correctly engrossed the Customs Import Entry Form A in accordance with the particulars contained in the invoice referable to the purchase of the seed; (d) that the only evidence that the corriander seed was of Moroccan origin was the markings on the bags which contained the seed; (e) that there was no mens rea or carelessness on the part of appellant, (f) that the stitching on the mouth of the bag exhibited was partly in manila hemp; (g) that the corriander seeds in the exhibited bags were round. On investigation the five bags were found each to be contained in an outer bag marked J. H. Patel and Sons, the name in which the appellant was trading, but the inner bags had written on them: “Alberdan/A.D. 4152/Corriander Favourite Singapore” and at the base of them the legend “produce of Morocco.”
The Supreme Court on appeal by the prosecutor convicted the appellant and imposed a fine of £50.
1965. July 19 and 20. E. F. N. Gratiaen Q.C., T. O. Kellock Q.C. and H. Daniell for the appellant. The charge under section 116 of the Customs Ordinance is not one of absolute liability inasmuch as “mens rea” is an ingredient of the offence. Making “any false entry” within section 116 carries an implication of guilty knowledge. There is nothing in the language of section 116 which excludes the ordinary presumption; on the contrary “false” indicates the essential of guilty knowledge. In the present case there was no proof at all of any guilty knowledge. What more could an honest trader do than ask the supplier for what he wants? The presumption that mens rea is an essential ingredient in every offence was the basis of the Board's judgment in Lim Chin Aik v. The Queen.F2 [Reference was made to Derbyshire v. Houliston.F3] The minimum penalty of £50 provided by the section is an indication that proof of mens rea must be required.
On the question whether there was any evidence upon which the appellant could be convicted of making a false declaration as charged, the only entry as to which the allegation of falsity was made was the word “India” in the column headed “country of origin” which is part of the import entry form signed by the appellant; and the only evidence purporting to show that this entry was false was the legend “produce of Morocco” written upon the bags. There was evidence that the bags were sometimes used twice. Neither the customer nor the customs officer has the means of knowing where the seed comes from, except by relying on the invoice Having heard the evidence for the prosecution and for the defence, the magistrate rightly held that it was not even remotely certain that the contents of the bag were of Moroccan origin. Further, the markings on the inner bag were not admissible as evidence of the country of origin of the contents of the bag, and the magistrate should have ruled that there was no case for the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Selassie v R
... ... of evidence The following cases were referred to in the judgment: Patel v Comptroller of Customs ELR [1996] AC 356 R (on the application of Byrne) v ... ...
- Muller & Phipps (M) Sdn Bhd v Penang Port Commission
- Beh Heng Seong v PP
-
Comptroller of Customs v Western Lectric Company Ltd
... ... 371F–G) ... Bulley v. Bulley (1874) 9 Ch.App. 739 and Patel v. Comptroller of Customs, ante, p. 356; [1965] 3 W.L.R. 1229; [1965] 3 All E.R. 593, P.C.; [1965] 3 W.L.R. 1229 followed ... Decision of the Supreme Court of Fiji affirmed ... APPEAL (No. 5 of 1965) by the Comptroller of Customs from (i) a judgment of the Fiji Court of Appeal (Mills-Owens P., ... ...
-
Subject Index
.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240Omychund vBarker (1745) 1 Atk2, 26 ER15 . . 293Patel v Comptroller of Customs [1966] AC 356,PC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328Patterson vDPP [1990] RTR329 . . . . . . . . . . . .288Pattison v DPP [......
-
R v Lenaghan: Is it Business as Usual in New Zealand despite the Reforms of the Evidence Act 2006?
...& PROOFCASE NOTE12 A second issue related to the directions of the judge on the issue of intention.13 See Patel vComptroller of Customs [1966] AC 356, PC and Comptroller of Customs vWestern Electric Co. Ltd[1966] AC 367, PC.14 [1969] 1 WLR 1510, QB.15 [1977] 1 NZLR 11, hearsay. It should no......
