Convictions under Customs
Ordinance, Cap. 130 of (a)
smuggling and (b) and (c). being
in possession of prohibited
imports Lack of evidence in
(a)-(b) and (c) should have been
struck out vide Stated Case
immediately hereinbefore
reported.
Held : Appeal
allowed, convictions quashed.
There is no
need to set out the facts. C.
W. Reece for Crown.
E. E. E.
Anwan for Appellant.
The following
joint judgment was delivered:-
KINGDON, C.J.,
NIGERIA, PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD
COAST, GRAHAM PAUL, C.J., SIERRA
LEONE.
In this case
the appellant was charged before
Jeffreys, Acting Assistant Judge
of the High Court at Buea, with
the following offences: -
"
I.-STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
" Smuggling
contra. sec. 221 (1) (a)
Cap. ISO.
" PARTICULARS
OF OFFENCE.
" That
Michael Ntiero Effiom on the
24th day of June, 1940, at "Bimbia
Man-of-War Bay, in the Cameroons
Province did smuggle " twelve
tierces of tobacco value £959 7s
9d gross weight 4,553 lb."
"
2.-STATEMENT O~' OFFENCE.
"Being in
possession of prohibited import
contra~ sec. 223 (1) (a)
" Cap. 130.
" PARTICULARS
OF OFFENCE.
"He at the
same time and place did smuggle
one automatic • "pistol
"
3.-STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
" Being in
possession of prohibited import
contra. sec. 223 (1) (a)
" Cap. 130.
" PARTICULARS
OF OFFENCE.
'. He at the
same time and place did smuggle
twenty rounds of pistol "
ammunition."
The trial Judge
convicted him of all three
offences and pa88ed sentence in
the following terms:-
" ON THE FIRST
CHARGE.
"I order the
forfeiture of the canoe and of the
tobacco. import " a penalty under
section 231 of the Customs
Ordinance of three times "the
value of the goods namely a fine
of £2,700 or in default twelve
"months I.H.L.
" ON THE SECOND
CHARGE.
" I order the
forfeiture of the pistol and
impose a sentence of three "
months I.H.L.
" ON THE THIRD
CHARGE.
"I order the
forfeiture of the ammunition and
impose a sentence' "of one month
I.H.L.
" All sentences
are to run consecutively."
On appeal the
learned Counsel for the Crown has
felt unable to support any of the
convictions and we agree that they
can none of them stand, for the
following reasons:-
On the first
charge, Smuggling, there was no
evidence at all of any actual
smuggling or of any attempt to
smuggle.
As to the
second alleged offence, the charge
and particulars should have been
struck out as bad for reasons
already explained in the decision
of the Court upon the case stated
in this matter.
And the same
applies to the third offence.
The appeal is
allowed all the convictions are
quashed, the sentences passed, the
penalty imposed, and the orders of
fodeiture made in the Court below
are annulled and it is directed
that in respect of each of the
charges a judgment and verdict of
acquittal be entered.
|
