The appellant appealed his conviction for importing 1.18 kilograms of cocaine concealed in frozen fish in suitcases brought from Jamaica.
The sole issue at trial was whether the accused knew about the cocaine, as he claimed he had been duped into transporting the fish.
On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge improperly relied on his false customs declaration and misapprehended evidence concerning surrounding circumstances.
The Court of Appeal held that the false declaration was conduct occurring during the commission of the offence and could properly be considered as circumstantial evidence and in assessing credibility.
The court further found no misapprehension of evidence in the trial judge’s findings and upheld the inference that the appellant knew about the cocaine.
