Margeson v R

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Malone, C.J.)
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1990
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 01 January 1990

Grand Court

(Malone, C.J.)

MARGESON

and

R.

Mrs. P. Levers and G. Hampson for the appellant;

R. Sheehan, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.

Cases cited:

(1) Howey v. Bradley, [1970] Crim. L.R. 223; (1969), 114 Sol. Jo. 37, distinguished.

(2) R. v. Jones, [1978] 1 W.L.R. 195; [1978] 2 All E.R. 718; (1977), 66 Cr. App. R. 246, dicta of Lane, L.J. applied.

(3) R. v. PettigrewUNK(1980), 71 Cr. App. R. 39; [1980] Crim. L.R. 239, distinguished.

Legislation construed:

Evidence Law, 1978 (Law 13 of 1978), s.23: The relevant terms of this section are set out at page 146, line 34 – page 147, line 19.

Evidence-hearsay-documentary hearsay-foreign invoice admissible under Evidence Law, 1978, s.23 as ‘record relating to business’-if obvious that prepared by person ‘beyond the seas’ no further proof of origin necessary

The appellant was charged in the Magistrate”s Court, George Town with evading Customs duties on the importation of goods.

The appellant regularly imported goods into the Cayman Islands from the United States. Under the Customs regulations, he was required to present the relevant import entry forms, bills of lading and invoices to the Customs and to pay the amount of duty charged. In each case the duty was to be 20% of the open market price of the goods, which had to be stated in the invoice, plus the freight charges. The appellant was charged with having evaded payment of the correct duty contrary to s.54 of the Customs Law (Second Revision) in that he presented false invoices which purported to show that the open market price of the goods was lower than it really was.

At the trial, the prosecution tendered in evidence documents which had been prepared by the appellant”s US suppliers and which had been found in his apartment. No attempt was made to call the suppliers in person. The documents were (a) invoices which were identical with the invoices presented to the Customs except that they showed a high price for the goods, and (b) documents showing the retail prices of the goods, which were the same as the prices indicated in the invoices which were found. On the basis of this evidence the appellant was found guilty after the prosecution established that he knowingly and deliberately attributed to the goods a lower value in order to pay less duty.

On appeal, the appellant submitted, inter alia, that the lower court had erred in law when it admitted in evidence the documents found in the appellant”s apartment because they did not fall within the Evidence Law, 1978, s.23, the court having failed to inquire who had prepared the documents and, if ‘beyond the seas,’ whether that person had refused to come to give evidence.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

The contested documentary evidence had been properly admitted. Since it had been used to prove the true market price of the goods it was hearsay evidence which would have been inadmissible unless it fell within s.23 of the Evidence Law, 1978. The documents were invoices and as such satisfied the requirements of s.23(1)(a) as being ‘part of . . . a record relating to any trade or business.’ They also showed clearly on

their face that they had been prepared by a person who was ‘beyond the seas,’ and no further proof of their origin was therefore necessary to make them admissible under s.23(1)(b). It was not even necessary for the court to draw any inference from their form and content under s.23(2) to ensure their admissibility. As there had been ample evidence before the court to establish that the appellant had made a false representation to evade payment of the full duty contrary to the Customs Law (Second Revision), s.54, the appeal would be dismissed (page 146, lines 25–32; page 147, lines 20–24; page 149, lines 5–10).

MALONE, C.J.: This appeal is against convictions and
sentences in respect of two offences under the provisions of s.54
of the Customs Law (Second Revision) (‘the Law’). The
25	relevant portion of that section is as follows:
‘Whoever directly or indirectly by any misrepresentation
. . . evades . . . payment of. . . part of the duty . . . payable
on any goods . . . is (except in the absence of guilty
knowledge, proof of which is upon such person) guilty of
30	evading customs duty.’
It was alleged in the charges that the accused had evaded
payment of customs duties in that he had falsely represented that
to the best of his knowledge and belief all the information given
on the documents for the entry of the goods to which the charges
35	related was true and correct and that the dutiable value given
properly represented the value for duty of the goods concerned.
The appellant is a 40% shareholder of 2 Johns Co. Ltd. and
one of the founders of that company. In that company it was the
appellant who dealt with the importation of goods and it was he
40	who would go to the United States to shop for them. In relation
to the goods which are the concern of the charges, he presented

the relevant import entry forms, bills of lading and invoices to
Customs and paid Customs with a cheque for the amount of duty
charged. In each instance the duty was 20% of the open market
price represented by the invoice costs, plus the freight charges.
5	Consequently if the value of the goods was false because the
invoice costs were less than the open market price, the duty
charged would be less than the correct amount payable. It is the
Crown”s case that the invoices were false. In proof of that
allegation the Crown relied on documents found at an

...