Girdhari v Lautoka Town Council [1974] FijiLawRp 12; [1974] 20 FLR 42 (26 March 1974)

[1974] 20 FLR 42

SUPREME COURT

Appellate Jurisdiction

GIRDHARI

v

LAUTOKA TOWN COUNCIL

WILLIAMS J.

26th March1974

Criminal Law — principles of criminal liability — mens rea—whether offence of abandoning litter one of strict liability — Lautoka By-Laws 1972 regs 2, 3, 6 and 7 (a)

Interpretation — criminal law — litter offence — meaning of abandon — Lautoka By-Laws 1972 regs 2, 6 and 7 (a)

The appellant admitted scattering onion skins on the pavement near his stall in Lautoka, but said that he intended to clear them up.

The appellant contended that the charge should have read "abandoning onion skins" rather than "depositing" them on the pavement, and that it was not an offence of strict liability.

Held. 1. The statutory meaning of abandon included "to deposit" in Regulation 2.

2. The offence was not one of strict liability, but once it had been shown that the litter had been deposited, the onus was on the appellant to prove that he deposited the onion skins in circumstances making him innocent of any guilty intent at the moment of depositing. It was not sufficient for the appellant merely to declare that he intended to clear up at the end of the day. This did not discharge the onus under Regulation 7(a).

Cases referred to:

Alphacell Ltd. v Woodward [1972] 2 All ER 475; [1972] AC 824.

Sweet v Parsley [1969] 1 All ER 347 [1970] AC 132.

Lim Chin Aik v R [1963] 1 All ER 223 [1963] AC 160.

Appeal against conviction in the Magistrate's Court for depositing litter in a public place.

R. Krishna for the appellant.

B. C. Patel for the respondent.

WILLIAMS J.: [26th March 1974]

The appellant was convicted in the Magistrate's Court at Lautoka for depositing litter in a public place contrary to Regulations 3 and 6 of the Lautoka By-Laws 1972 (found in Part IV, P.11 of the 1972 volume).

The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution evidence that the appellant at his stall in the Lautoka Market peeled onion on to the pavement and that onion skins were scattered around. He also accepted the defendant's statement on oath that he intended to clear up the skins. Nevertheless the Magistrate convicted him saying that the regulations created a strict liability and therefore the defendant's intention was irrelevant.

Mr Krishna for the appellant submitted to the Magistrate that the charge should read "abandoning onion skins" rather than "depositing" them on the payment. The Magistrate observed that the word "deposit" best described the defendant's action and under the regulations "abandons" embraces the word "deposit". Regulation 3 reads:—