(1965) LCER-339(SC) #

Case Summary #

This appeal borders on Criminal Law and Procedure. 

Brief Facts: #

This appeal contests the decision of the High Court in Port Harcourt. The appellant faced prosecution on two counts under Section 145(a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act, 1958. The second count pertained to 37 quart bottles of White Horse whisky valued at 95-11s-8d, goods subject to customs duty of 64-15s-0d, similar to the first count, which accused the appellant of knowingly and with intent to defraud the Federal Government, acquiring possession of various liquor bottles, also chargeable with customs duty, on September 30, 1962.

During the trial, witnesses were called by the prosecution, and the appellant provided sworn evidence. Ultimately, the Chief Magistrate ruled in favor of the appellants, acquitting them. The judgment highlighted the lack of evidence presented for certain items and questioned the conclusion drawn from the absence of certain liquor brands in local shops.

The prosecutor appealed this judgment to the High Court, arguing that the Chief Magistrate disregarded pertinent provisions of the Customs and Excise Management Act, specifically Sections 166(2)(a) and 168. The High Court judge, in his ruling, emphasized that the burden of proof rested on the prosecution to demonstrate that the defendant possessed dutiable goods, and if the defendant could reasonably establish that the goods were acquired through legitimate trade channels at standard prices, the presumption of guilt would be rebutted.

Consequently, the judge ordered a retrial by the Chief Magistrate. The appellant contested this order of retrial, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues: #

The Court considered the propriety of the order of retrial made by the High Court

Ratio Decidendi #

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – Offence of Receiving Stolen Goods/Property – Cardinal consideration of the law in the offence of receiving stolen goods #

“… the cardinal consideration in law is explained at length in the considered judgement in R . v. Cohen, where it is explained at p.206 of the report, that this sort of case resembles a case of receiving stolen goods- “when the evidence relied on for the prosecution is merely possession of goods recently stolen. That has always been held to be prima facie evidence of guilty knowledge, or, in other words, to raise a presumption of guilt, so that if no explanation is given by the receiver the jury are entitled, though not compelled, to convict. On the other hand, if the explanation given either satisfies the jury or raises a doubt in their minds as to guilty knowledge, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal. A case is never proved if the sum of the evidence leaves the jury in doubt. So, in the present class of case, once it is proved that the accused was knowingly in possession of dutiable goods which he has not proved had paid duty, if he gives no explanation, he may be convicted of harbouring. If he does give an explanation, the jury should be told that if it either satisfies them that he did not know the goods were uncustomed or leaves them in doubt whether he knew, he should be acquitted.” Per VAHE ROBERT BAIRAMIAN, JSC in in NADER V. BOARD OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE (1965) LCER-339(SC) (Pp 9 – 10 Paras E – E)

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – Offence of Receiving Stolen Goods/Property – Essential ingredients of the offence of receiving stolen property #

“Lord Goddard goes on to deal with the other ingredient of the offence, namely intent to defraud, which is to be inferred from the circumstances; he says this- “If a jury is satisfied that the accused knew, which would include a case in which he had willfully shut his eyes to the obvious, that the goods were uncustomed, and he had them in his possession for use or sale, it would follow, in the absence of any other circumstance, that he intended to defraud the revenue.” Per VAHE ROBERT BAIRAMIAN, JSC in in NADER V. BOARD OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE (1965) LCER-339(SC) (Pp 10 – 11 Paras F – B)

EVIDENCE – Burden of Proof/Onus of Proof – On whom lies the burden of proving payment of customs duty #

“The ground of appeal for the prosecution was that- “The learned trial Chief Magistrate erred in law because he disregarded the provisions of Sections 166(2)(a) and 168 of the Customs and Excise Management Act.” The former of these provisions is (inter alia) that where there is any question whether customs duty has been paid, the burden of proof shall lie on the defendant; the latter is that it is not for the prosecution to prove guilty knowledge or intent, but the onus is on the defendant to disprove it.” Per VAHE ROBERT BAIRAMIAN, JSC in NADER V. BOARD OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE (1965) LCER-339(SC) (Pp 6 – 7 Paras D – A)

Decision/Held: #

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the decision and orders of the Chief Magistrate made on 28 June, 1963.