clr/1981/1981_2_227.pdf

(3)not relevant to the construction of regulation

1. This was an appeal against the conviction of the appellant of the offence of having taken into his employment at his restau­ rant in Larnaca an alien, namely a German Lady, without informingtheMigration Officer, contrary toregulation 38 of the Aliens and Immigration Regulations,
2. Two Police Constables, whose testimony was believed by thetrial Judge, saw theGerman lady, on October 27, 1980, sitting at the cash register in the restaurant of appellant and keeping notes and, also, on one occasion serving food to clients of the restaurant. Counsel for the appellant contended: (a) That the conviction was unreasonable having regard to the evidence adduced. (b) That the offence under regulation 38 is committed only when there exists a contract providing for employ­ ment on remuneration and that no such contract was proved to exist in the present case. 20 25 Held,

(1)that the taking by someone into his employment of another person may be inferred from facts which are proved at the trial; that in this case it was reasonably open to the trial Λ 227 Seraphim v. Police

(1981)Judge to find beyond reasonable doubt that thelady concerned hadbeentakenbytheappellantintohisemployment; accordingly contention (a) should fail.

(2)That there is nothing in regulation 38 which could lead to its interpretation as contended bycounsel for the appellant; 5 that this regulation is framed in such a way as to render an offence the taking into employment of an alien without proper notification to theappropriate authority evenifthe employment is without a contract for this purpose and, even, also, without remuneration; accordingly contention (b) should, also, fail, 10 Held,further, that reference to regulation 14

(3)of the same Regulations, inwhich thereisfound theexpression "onremuneration ornot",is really irrelevant to theconstruction of regulation 38,both because regulation 14

(3)relates to an altogether different matterandbecauseregulation38isquiteclearlyworded. 15 Appeal dismissed. Appeal against conviction. Appeal against conviction and sentence by Ioannis Seraphim who was convicted on the 9th December, 1980 at ths District Court of Larnaca (Criminal Case No. 5874/80) on one count 20 of the offence of having taken in his employment an alien without informing the Migration Officer, contrary to regulation 38 of the Aliens and Immigration Regulations, 1972 and was sentenced by Eliades, Ag. D.J. to pay a fine of£

1. G. Nicolaides with M. Nicolatos, for the appellant. 25 A. M. Angelides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. TRIANTAFYLLIDESP.gave thefollowing judgment of the Court. The appellant wasconvicted, by the District Court of Larnaca, under regulation 38of the Aliens and Immigration Regulations, 30 1972(seeNo. 242intheThird Supplement, Part I,tothe Official Gazette of the Republic of December 22, 1972)of the offence of having taken into hisemployment athisrestaurant in Larnaca an alien, namely a German lady, without informing accordingly the Migration Officer. He was sentenced to pay a fine of £
2. 35 He has appealed against his conviction. The first ground on which his appeal was argued is that, 228 2 C.L.R. Seraphim v. Police Triantafyilides P. having regard to the evidence adduced, the conviction is unreasonable. .Two police constables, whose testimony was believed by the trial Judge, said that on October 27, 1980,they sawthesaid 5 German lady sitting at the cash register in the restaurant of theappellant and keepingnotesand that, also, ononeoccasion she was serving food to clients of the restaurant. The appellant, when he was charged with the commission of the offence in question, denied completely that this lady 10 had been ever taken into his employment and said that on the aforesaid dateshewasathisrestaurant but shewasnotworking. Hewent onto say, however, that previously she had voluntarily worked there with her fianc6, without any remuneration. The trial Judge did not believe the appellant and a witness 15 whowascalled by him, andwho testified th?t the said ladywas not employed or working at the material time in the restaurant of the appellant. Thetakingbysomeoneintohisemployment ofanother person may be inferred from facts which areproved at the trial and in 20 this case we are of the view that it was reasonably open to the trial Judge to find beyond reasonable doubt that the ladyconcerned had been taken by the appellant into his employment. The second ground of appeal is that the offence under the aforesaid regulation 38 is committed only when there 25 exists a contract providing for employment on remuneration and that no such contract was proved to exist in the present case. We cannot find anything in regulation 38 which could lead to its interpretation as contended by counsel for the appellant. 30 This regulation isframed in such a way as to render an offence the taking into employment of an alien without proper notification to the appropriate authority, even if the employment is without a contract for this purpose and, tven, also, without remuneration. We think that reference to regulation 14

(3)35 of the same Regulations, inwhich th?re is found the expression "on remuneration ornot", ii reallj irrelevant tothe construction 229 Triantafyllides P. Seraphim v. Police

(1981)of regulation 38, both because regulation 14

(3)relates to an altogether different matter and because regulation 38 is quite clearly worded that we cannot read into it the provision that an offence under it is committed only if there exists a contract of employment and if such employment is on remuneration. 5 For all the foregoing reasons this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. 230