Comptroller of Customs v Phipps et Al

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Judge: Moe J.A.
• Judgment Date: 13 March 1986
• Neutral Citation: KN 1986 CA 3
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 11 and 12 of 1985
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Date: 13 March 1986

Court of Appeal.

Robotham, C.J., Moe, J.A, Joseph, J.A (Ag.)

Criminal Appeal Nos. 11 and 12 of 1985

Comptroller of Customs

and

Phipps et al

Appearances

Mr. N. Butler for the appellant

Mr. Lee Moore and Dr. H. Browne for first respondent

Mr. Fitzroy Bryant for second respondent

Practice and Procedure - Authorisation of Counsel to act for client — Interpretation of s. 144 of the Trade and Revenue Ordinance, Cap. 258 (As amended)

Statute - Trade and Revenue Ordinance, Cap. 258 s. 144 — Interpretation — Whether under section 144 counsel acting on behalf of Comptroller of Customs required to produce written evidence that he was authorised so to do — According to section 74 of Magistrates Code of Procedure Act, cap. 46. It was not necessary for counsel to produce written evidence.

Facts: Appellant laid complaint before magistrate alleging offences by respondents under section 95 of Trade and Revenue Ordinance, cap. 258 — Magistrate dismissed complaints on grounds that counsel in accordance with section 144 of Trade and Revenue Ordinance, cap. 258, did not show he was authorised to act on behalf of Comptroller of Customs — Court held that the magistrate erred, since, according to section 74 of Magistrate Code of Procedure Act, Cap. 46 it was not necessary for counsel to produce written evidence — Appeal allowed.

1 Moe J.A. delivered the judgment of the court: This appeal concerns questions arising from the interpretation of section 144 of the Trade and Revenue Ordinance Cap 258 as amended. The appellant laid complaints before the magistrate alleging offence by the respondents contrary to section 95 of the Trade and Revenue Ordinance Cap 258, hereafter referred to as the Ordinance. At the hearing of the complaints, Mr. Ferdinand, Crown counsel appeared on behalf of the Comptroller of Customs the appellant.

2 At the close of the case for the prosecution, the learned magistrate invited counsel to address him on the interpretation of section 144 of the Ordinance. The magistrate raised for consideration the matter of counsel's authorisation to “conduct” the proceedings on behalf of the Comptroller of Customs. No authorisation had been submitted to the court or tendered in evidence. During addresses, Mr. Ferdinand stated that he had authorisation and was ready to present it. After hearing counsel on both sides the Magistrate dismissed the complaints on the grounds as stated in the record that had ladled jurisdiction and alternatively that there was no evidence as to the facts required by the section 144, i.e., that the Crown Counsel, Mr. Ferdinand was duly authorised in writing by the Comptroller of Customs to conduct the case before the court.

3 Section 144 of the Ordinance provides:–

“The Comptroller of Customs, or any official or other person duly authorised by him in writing may prosecute, or conduct or defend before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction any information, complaint or other proceedings under this Ordinance.”

4 Counsel for the appellant submitted that the magistrate erred in holding that under section 144 of the Ordinance Counsel must have written authorisation from the Comptroller of Customs to act on his, behalf. He contended firstly that the provision of section 144 requiring authorisation in writing applies only to persons who are not lawyers and is not referable to counsel. Secondly that by section 74 of the Magistrates' Code of Procedure Act, Cap. 46, any party before the magistrate may appear by counsel. Section 74 of Cap, 46 provides “The person bringing the charge and the person charged may conduct their own case or may appear by counsel or Solicitor.”

5 Counsel referred also...