Alfred v Yipyoung et Al

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Wooding, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 21 September 1966
• Neutral Citation: TT 1966 CA 98
• Docket Number: No. 431 of 1966
• Date: 21 September 1966

Court of Appeal

Wooding, C.J.; McShine, J.A.; Fraser, J.A.

No. 431 of 1966

Alfred

and

Yipyoung et al

Appearances:

Mr. A. Warner, Acting Asst. Solicitor-General, appeared for the appellant.

The respondents did not appear.

Criminal Law - Larceny — Appeal against conviction — Charge laid under s. 8 of the Praedial Larceny Prevention Act, No. 12 of 1963 — Whether charge justifiably dismissed. — Respondents were charged with having in their possession agricultural produce and with failing to produce a memorandum of their sale or delivery or to give other proof of their ownership when required to do so. Charges were laid under s. 8 of the Praedial Larceny Prevention Act, No. 12 of 1963 — Charges were dismissed — Appellant appealed — Offence is created under s. 8 of the Act merely because a person failed on request to produce a memorandum of sale or delivery or to give proof of ownership — Such failure is only a preliminary, entitling a constable to look upon him as a suspected person and accordingly invoke the other provisions of the Act — In addition sections 35 and 36 of the Summary Courts Ordinance, Cap. 3, No. 4 make it clear that anybody who is brought before the Court must be brought on an information setting out, with particulars, the specific offence with which the person is charged — Appeal accordingly dismissed.

Wooding, C.J.

1 In this matter the information against the two respondents charged them with having in their possession agricultural produce, namely 14 grapefruit, and with failing to produce a memorandum of their sale or delivery or to give other proof of their ownership when required to do so. The charge purports to be laid under s.8 of the Praedial Larceny Prevention Act, No. 12 of 1963. We have looked at the section. In our view, it creates no offence whatever. What it does is to provide that in circumstances such as were suggested here – subject however to one observation which I shall make in a moment – a person in possession of agricultural produce becomes a suspected person. The observation I make is this. S.8 contemplates a person being not merely in possession of agricultural produce but also in charge of a vehicle or other means of conveyance in which that agricultural produce is being conveyed. Indeed, s.8 has to be read in conjunction with ss.6 and 7 which give respectively (a) the right to a constable or other authorized person to stop and search a vehicle or other means of...