Bechu ats Police [1944] FJLawRp 5; [1874-1946] 3 FLR 374 (9 September 1944)

[1875-1946] 3 FLR 374

SUPREME COURT OF FIJI

Appellate Jurisdiction

BECHU

ats

POLICE

Corrie, C.J.

September 9, 1944.

Supplying liquor to members of armed forces-whether soldier to whom liquor was supplied is an accomplice whose evidence requires corroboration.

Appellant was convicted of an offence contrary to Regulation 68(1) of the "Defence (Liquor) Regulations 1943^[1] which was as follows:-

"68-(1) Any person who gives or supplies any liquor to, or acts as agent for the procurement of any liquor for, any member of any of His Majesty's Naval, Military or Air Forces, or any member of any of the Naval, Military or Air Forces of any allied foreign state, when in uniform except for consumption on the premises where it is given, supplied or purchased, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to imprisonment for any period not exceeding six months, or to a fine, not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine."

The evidence for the prosecution was that appellant obtained a "lift" from a United States Army truck travelling from Lautoka to Ba and that on the way he arranged to sell a quantity of liquor to the truck driver-one Private Dziadus. The truck accordingly pulled up at appellant's house and appellant brought out a quantity of liquor. He had just placed the liquor in the truck when a party of police came to the scene. Private Dziadus was called as a witness for the prosecution.

HELD –

The soldier to whom liquor is supplied is not an accomplice in the offence of supplying liquor to a member of the forces.

[EDITORIAL NOTE -See Subhaiya Pillai ats Police [1946] 3 Fiji LR-for a similar case which was distinguished from the case here decided].

Cases referred to:-

Jenks v Turpin [1884] UKLawRpKQB 136; [1884] 13 QBD. 505; 53 LJ MC. 161; 50 L.T. 808; 15 Cox CC 486; 25 Dig 424.

APPEAL against conviction.

P. Rice for the appellant.

E. M. Pritchard for the respondent.

CORRIE, C.J.-The only question on this appeal is that of lack of corroboration of the evidence of the witness Dziadus. He, however, was not assisting the appellant in conducting the business of the supply of liquor to members of the armed forces, and hence he appears to come within the rule in Jenks v Turpin [1884] 13 QBD at p. 534: and thus would not require corroboration.

Apart from that, moreover, there was evidence as to the position in which the bottles were found upon which the court could rely as corroborating Dziadus.

Appeal dismissed.

---

^[1] Rep. Vide Liquor Ordinance, 1946, s. 67