Petty v Biggerstaff
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1954 |
| Date | 01 January 1954 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
No evidence of origin of goods or of unlawful importation - Onus of proof - Customs Consolidation Act, 1876 (39 40 Vict., c. 36), ss. 186, 259
Where a defendant is charged with being knowingly concerned in dealing with goods contrary to s. 186 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, the complainant must prove that the defendant was knowingly concerned in dealing with the goods in question, but thereafter by virtue of s. 259 of that Act the onus is on the defendant to show that the duty in respect of the goods had been paid or that the goods were lawfully imported, or that they were not brought from a place outside the United Kingdom. B was charged on a summons which alleged that he had been knowingly concerned in dealing with a Ford motor ear in contravention of s. 186 of the Act of 1876. A second summons charged a similar offence in relation to an Austin motor car. At the hearing no evidence was adduced by B who contended that the onus was on the complainant to prove that duty was due on the cars, or that they were brought from a place outside the United Kingdom. Held, by the Court of Appeal (Lord MacDermott L.C.J. Porter and Black L.JJ.), (i) that on the summons relating to the Ford car the evidence for the complainant was insufficient to establish that B was concerned in dealing with the car and accordingly no case was proved which would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herrera v Pech et Al
...to section 124 of Chapter 36 of our Laws…” 36 Later the Judge said:– “It seems to me, however, that the case of Petty v Biggerstaff (1954) N.I.70 IR shows even more clearly where the onus rests when a dispute arises as to whence goods are brought or imported. The only report of this case av......