M. SAMUEL & Co., Limited,
LONDON, E.C. 2.
-3-
37
11 is directed against the actual shipper or importer of the forbidden article, the person as one might say who is there.
Section 12 on the other hand is directed against the master
and owner of the vessel, making them responsible for the
presence of the article practically irrespective of any question
as to who put it there.
This being so, it may perhaps appear rather illogical
that the scope of the presumption in the latter case should be
wider than in the former. It might reasonably be argued that
it ought rather to be narrower and that the legislature must
have intended that it should at least be subject to the same
limitations.
The
But it is not the business of the Court to criticise
the acts of the legislature or to guess what might or might
not have been intended. The work of the Court is to administer
the law according to the plain meaning of the words used.
wording of section 12 is quite clear and complete in itself. it seems to me that any attempt to read into sub-section (3)
the words "within the limits of any port, "or some such phrase
would be equivalent to qualifying the definition of importation
given in section 2 of the Ordinance.
"Import" with its grammatical variations and cognate
expressions, means to bring into or cause to be brought into
the Colony by land sea or air".
And to complete the definition I turn to the Inter- pretation Ordinance, under the heading "Geographical Defini-
tions"
"Colony" includes the several Settlements of Singapore Penang, Malacca and Labuan, and all other islands and places for the time being forming part of the Straits Settlements, and
all British waters adjacent thereto.
Another point which I think has rather been lost sight
of is that even under Section 11 the offence is not confined
to matters within Port limits.
All it says is that the