Diab v Robateau

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Court of Appeal (Belize)
• Judge: Malone, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 25 July 1974
• Neutral Citation: BZ 1974 CA 31
• Date: 25 July 1974

Court of Appeal

Malone, C.J.

Diab

and

Robateau

D. E. G. Malone, Chief Justice

Mr. S. W. Musa for the Appellant

Mr. E. Flowers for the Respondent

Criminal Law - Evidence — Admissibility of document

Customs and Excise — Customs duty — Fraudulent evasion

Evidence — Admissibility of document

Facts: Invoice relating to goods in possession of appellant — Appellant charged with fraudulent evasion of customs duties — Invoice not prepared by appellant — Maker of invoice had not given evidence — Appellant had honoured invoice by payment

Facts: The issue was whether the right of the Comptroller of Customs to elect a forfeiture must be exercised before conviction restricts the magistrate to imposing the fine provided by law

Facts: Invoice found in possession of appellant honoured by payment — Maker of invoice not the appellant — No evidence given by maker — Principles by which a document will be admitted into evidence although such document is not presented by the maker thereof

Held: Invoice was properly admissible as evidence from which his knowledge of its contents could be inferred and from which also might be inferred his complicity in the transaction to which it related, that being the presentation of the customs entry form with a false invoice annexed to it — The invoice was receivable also against him as an admission of the truth of its content, by his adoption of it as a bill for payment — Appeal dismissed.

Held: (1) The stage at which the Comptroller makes his decision does not matter. The most appropriate time to make the decision would be after conviction.

Held: (1) The general rule is that it is not permissible to admit into evidence a document which as not presented by the maker thereof. There are however exceptions to this rule: documents which are, or have been in the possession of a party will generally be admissible against him is original (circumstantial) evidence to show his knowledge of their contents, his connection with, or complicity in the transactions to which they relate or his state of mind with reference thereto. (2) The finding at the appellant's shop of the invoice relating to the goods in question was properly admissible as evidence from which his knowledge of its contents could be inferred, and from which also might be inferred his complicity in the presentation of the customs entry form with a false invoice annexed to it.

1 The appellant was in March 1973 convicted by the Chief Magistrate of Belize City of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of duties of customs contrary to section 114(1) (g) of the Customs Regulation Ordinance, Chapter 36. At the election of the respondent he was ordered to forfeit $9,396.00 being treble the value of the goods concerned or in default to serve six months' imprisonment.

2 The learned Chief Magistrate found as proven the following facts for which he gave full reasons for his findings. Namely that:

1

the customs entry form relating to the goods in question bore the signature of the appellant; 2. the invoice which was annexed to the customs entry form when it was presented was not the invoice that in...