R v Alexander et Al

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Carey, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 26 March 1982
• Neutral Citation: JM 1982 CA 15
• Docket Number: Resident Magistrate's Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1981
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Date: 26 March 1982

Court of Appeal

Zacca P., Rowe, J.A., Carey, J.A.

Resident Magistrate's Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1981

R

and

Alexander et al

F.M.G. Phipps Q.C. and Carl Von Cork for Alexander

Earl DeLisser for Lee

F. Smith and P. Sutherland for Crown

Practice and procedure - Courts — Resident Magistrate's Court — Jurisdiction — Judicature (Resident Magistrates) Act, s.65

Facts: The appellants were convicted of harbouring uncustomed goods which were found on the 1st appellant's premises. The 2nd appellant gave directions and assisted in the unloading operations. They appealed on the ground that the Resident Magistrate's court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter nor impose any penalty

Held: Appeal dismissed. The Resident Magistrate pursuant to the Judicature (Resident Magistrates) Act, s. 65 is empowered to exercise a criminal jurisdiction in the recovery of all penalties or forfeiture to the Crown and of fines in the nature of penalties under all statutes relating to the public revenue.

Carey, J.A.

1 The appellants were convicted in the Resident Magistrate's Court at Half-Way-Tree on an information which alleged that “on 6th November, 1979 they did knowingly harbour uncustomed goods at premises 10 Tangerine Place, St. Andrew to wit:

601 pieces stretch Nylon Tights

405 Polyester Dresses

499 Polyester Wrap Dresses

2006 Leotards

322 Polyester Knit Blouses

439 Hand Bags

360 Ladies T-Shirts

2 contrary to Section 210 of the Customs Act.” Each was sentenced to pay a penalty on the election of the Collector General, of $161,512.50 and in default of payment, imprisonment at hard labour for 9 months.

3 The charge was the sequel to a raid mounted by police and customs officers and carried out on these premises which the appellant Alexander acknowledged to be his. On the eve of this operation, a senior customs officer called at the private residence of the appellant Alexander but did not find him in. He did, however, observe the other appellant Lee, come by in a car which having stopped momentarily by the premises, drove on. Much later, at about midnight Alexander employed a trucker and his assistants to help him remove goods stored at Tangerine Place. The truck was parked during the loading operations in an unlit area on these premises. In the midst of these proceedings, the police and customs officers descended. A search warrant was read to Alexander who was actually giving orders in regard to the loading of the truck. In the room in which Alexander was found, there was to be a seen a number of drums which were empty sundry garments on hangers, and a number of cartons. In an adjoining room, other articles were found. All these articles Alexander informed the officers were Lee's. He did acknowledge that he did occupy the room in which he was and also that the business of manufacturing garments was carried on there. As to his presence on the building he explained that he, owned the premises and had come along to allow Lee access to his goods.

4 It appears from the evidence that it some time in the course of that early morning the other appellant Lee was on the premises assisting in the loading operations of goods onto the truck, and also directions in this regard. But upon the arrival of the police and the customs officers on the scene, he decamped. Subsequently at the police station, one of the trucker's assistants pointed him out as a person who had run off when the police came on the premises. Lee made, no comment when this was said.

5 The articles, removed from the premises at 10 Tangerine Place together with the goods loaded onto the truck and which are enumerated in the information were duly admitted in evidence against both appellants.

6 The appellant Donovan Alexander in his defence said not only that he had purchased all the goods from a George Freeman, the trucker who at the trial gave evidence for the prosecution, but had been assured that the documentation was in order. Indeed he had inspected some of the documents produced by George Freeman and he was satisfied that the goods had not been stolen. As to the other appellant, he gave an unsworn statement in which he recited what he had been requested to allow a truck to use his premises to enable goods from Florio Ltd. to be loaded onto it. While on the premises he had seen the arrival of men armed with guns; they were policemen. He left the scene.

7 Before us two aspects of the matter were canvassed, one factual, the other as to the jurisdiction of the learned resident magistrate to determine the matter in the exercise of his special statutory jurisdiction as opposed to hearing the matter as two Justices of the peace sitting in Petty Sessions.

8 With respect to the first, counsel for the appellants urged that the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence. In our view there was abundant evidence on which the learned resident magistrate could have arrived at a decision adverse to these appellants. As to the first appellant, there was evidence that the premises on which the goods were found, belonged to him, that he told lies with regard to the goods in that at the time of their finding he intimated that they belonged to the other appellant but at trial he gave evidence that he had bought the goods legitimately. The customs declaration forms tendered before the learned resident magistrate did not demonstrate that duty had been paid on the goods set out in the information. The onus was of course on him to show that the appropriate duty had been paid or waived.

9 As regard the other appellant there was evidence of his presence on the premises described by learned counsel for the crown as his non-accidental presence at the rather odd hour of the morning, that he had provided special access for the truck, that he had given directions and had assisted in the loading operations and his sudden disappearance from the scene was inconsistent with the actions of a man who was innocent of any wrong doing.

10 The main thrust of the appeal however related to the question of jurisdiction. The ground was put in this way: “that the Resident Magistrate's court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter and to impose any penalty”

11 It is because we understand that there is no authority in point, that we have decided to put our reasons in writing for holding that the Learned Resident Magistrate sitting at the trial of the appellants had statutory authority to hear and determine the information in the exercise of special statutory jurisdiction.

12 We begin with the section under which the appellants were charged viz: section 210 of the Customs Act. So far as is material, it provides as follows:

“Every persons who shall import or bring, or be concerned in importing or bringing into the Island any prohibited goods, or any goods the importation of which is restricted, contrary to such prohibition or restriction,...