Beckford v R

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: PANTON, P.
• Judgment Date: 02 October 2009
• Neutral Citation: JM 2009 CA 96
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2009] 10 JJC 0901
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Date: 02 October 2009

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BEFORE:

THE HON. MR. JUSTICE PANTON, P THE HON. MR. JUSTICE COOKE, J.A THE HON. MR. JUSTICE MORRISON, J.A

DOUGLAS BECKFORD

V

REGINA

Mrs. Jacqueline Samuels-Brown for the appellant

Miss Kathy-Ann Pyke on Fiat for the Crown

CRIMINAL LAW - Forgery - Obtaining money by false pretences - Whether the Resident Magistrate had jurisdiction - Judicature (Resident Magistrates) Act, s. 267

PANTON, P.

1 The appellant was convicted in the Corporate Area Resident Magistrate's Court on two counts of an indictment for forgery and obtaining money by false pretences, and sentenced on October 2, 2007 to serve two concurrent terms of six months imprisonment. The indictment charged the appellant with forgery, uttering forged documents and obtaining money by means of false pretences, and alleged that these offences were all committed in the Corporate Area. The evidence presented, however, pointed to the offences having been committed, if at all, in the western parish of Saint Elizabeth.

2 It is agreed that the Resident Magistrate for the Corporate Area did not have jurisdiction. Section 267 of the Judicature (Resident Magistrates) Act states:

"For the purposes of the criminal law, the jurisdiction of every Court shall extend to the parish for which the Court is appointed, and one mile beyond the boundary line of the said parish: ..."

Further, the evidence did not allow for section 9(1) of the Criminal Justice (Administration) Act to come into operation. That section reads thus:

"Every person who commits any indictable offence may be proceeded against, indicted, tried, and punished in any parish or place in which such person may be apprehended, or may be in custody for such offence, or may appear in answer to a summons lawfully issued charging the offence, as if the offence had been committed in that parish or place, and the offence shall for all purposes incidental to or consequential upon the prosecution, trial, or punishment thereof, be deemed to have been committed in that parish or place."

3 In view of the lack of jurisdiction, the question for determination is what order we should make on this appeal. Here again, both Mrs. Samuels-Brown and Miss Pyke are at one. They are of the view that the Court should make an order in these terms: "Appeal allowed. Convictions quashed. Sentences set aside". In support of this position, we were referred to the case R v Monica Stewart (1971) 12 J.L.R. 465. In that case, the Resident Magistrate failed to sign the order for trial on indictment. Notwithstanding the appellant's plea of guilty, this Court was constrained to allow the appeal as the trial was a nullity. The relevant portion of the headnote reads:

"The provisions of s. 272 of the Judicature (Resident Magistrates) Law, Cap. 179, which required the resident magistrate to hold an inquiry to ascertain whether the offence charged in the information against an accused person is within his jurisdiction, to make an order for trial to be endorsed on...