R v Hua (C of A (CRI) 3 of 2004) [2004] LSCA 13 (20 October 2004)

R v Hua (C of A (CRI) 3 of 2004) [2004] LSCA 13 (20 October 2004)

The conviction could not stand because the prosecution failed to prove that the goods were dutiable or prohibited/restricted, which are essential elements of the offence under section 82.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] LSCA 13
Parties
Appellant: Don Pin Hua; Respondent: Rex
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
20 October 2004
Case Number
C of A (CRI) 3 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; acquittal entered
Legal Topics
Failure to Declare Dutiable Goods, Elements of Statutory Offences, Burden of Proof
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Customs Law Failure to Declare Dutiable Goods Elements of Statutory Offences Burden of Proof

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Don Pin Hua

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved that the goods were dutiable or prohibited/restricted under law as required by section 82 of the Customs and Excise Act No. 10 of 1982

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction could not stand because the prosecution failed to prove that the goods were dutiable or prohibited/restricted, which are essential elements of the offence under section 82.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; acquittal entered

Orders

  • The accused is found not guilty and acquitted.