Secreting Postal Packets
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300618 |
| Published date | 01 December 1999 |
| Date | 01 December 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Secreting
Postal
Packets
the present case,
the
respondent's admission that he was told that the
parcel might contain some drugs sufficed to establish that he was
concerned with the importation which actually took place, so that
the
judge was in error in holding that
the
defendant's knowledge was
insufficient to allow it to be said that he had acted 'knowingly'. In the
opinion of
the
Court of Appeal, the respondent had agreed to perform a
potentially supporting act which would complete the whole scheme of
importation. That agreed act of participation clearly
meant
that he was
concerned in the evasion of the prohibition that was involved. The court
pointed
out
that in every scheme to carry out a smuggling operation, it
is impossible to
'know'
with certainty
what
will happen. The respond-
ent's submission that the prosecution had to prove that he
knew
with
certainty that
the
parcel would contain drugs was to demand the impos-
sible, since there were innumerable events which might have occurred
to defeat the venture. Since the respondent could never
know
that
the
venture would be certain, the prosecution could never prove
the
'knowledge' which the respondent demanded should be proved.
Indeed, aperson could never be shown to be 'knowingly' concerned in
this sense, even
if
the venture ended by being in fact 100% successful.
Roch U
summed
up the situation in the words (at 400D-E),
'the
vice is
being prepared to assist or participate in the enterprise, should the
circumstances require
the
defendant to do so, even
when
that assistance
or participation will come after the time the drugs have arrived in this
country'. And, it
may
be added, in the light of RvKing (above), even
if
his impugned act came after the drugs had already been seized by the
customs
and
he
knew
it.
secrenng Postal Packets
R v Vgunza U Danga Yala [1999] 1 Cr App R 1
The appellant was employed as a supply cleaner by a company which
had
contracted to clean a post office. In
the
course of his work, he was
seen by a security officer and by a fellow employee to pick up
two
envelopes, which contained Social Security Allowance books,
and
to
take
them
to a store cupboard,
where
they were later found hidden
under
some shelving. He was charged with secreting two postal packets
contrary to s 57 of
the
Post Office Act 1953. His defence was
that
that
section did
not
apply to him, as he was an employee,
not
of the Post
Office,
but
of the company which had contracted with
the
Post Office, so
that
he was employed in
and
about
that
company's business,
not
the
Post Office's, at
the
time at which he was alleged to have committed an
offence contrary to s 57. The trial judge rejected that submission and he
was convicted. He appealed on the ground that the judge's ruling was
made in error.
that
'if
any officer of the
Post Office secretes or destroys a postal packet in the course of trans-
mission by post', he shall be guilty of an offence. Section 87 defines such
547
To continue reading
Request your trial