Glenford Campbell v R

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Judge: Morrison P
• Judgment Date: 16 March 2018
• Neutral Citation: JM 2018 CA 59
• Year: 2018
• Docket Number: PARISH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 4/2017

Glenford Campbell

and

R

[2018] JMCA Crim 10

Before:

THE HON Mr Justice Morrison P

THE HON Mrs Justice Sinclair-Haynes JA

THE HON Miss Justice P Williams JA

PARISH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 4/2017

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Peter Champagnie and Richard Lynch for the appellant

Mrs Christine Johnson-Spence for the Crown

Morrison P

1 At all material times, the appellant was a member of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (‘the JCF’). On 15 May 2015, Her Honour Mrs Stephanie Jackson-Haisley (‘the judge’), sitting in the Resident Magistrate's Court (now the Parish Court) for the parish of Saint Thomas, convicted the appellant of three offences under section 14(1)(a) of the Corruption Prevention Act (‘the Act’). These were (i) corruptly accepting $5,000.00 as a gift or advantage from the complainant for himself for omitting to prosecute him for breaches of the Road Traffic Act; (ii) corruptly accepting $3,500.00 as a gift or advantage from the complainant for himself for omitting to prosecute him for breaches of the Road Traffic Act; and (iii) corruptly soliciting money from the complainant as a gift or an advantage for himself for omitting to prosecute him for breaches of the Road Traffic Act.

2 Pursuant to section 15(1) of the Act, any person who commits an act of corruption falling within section 14 of the Act shall be liable on summary conviction in a Resident Magistrate's Court –

• “(i) in the case of a first offence to a fine not exceeding one million dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both such fine and imprisonment;”

3 At a sentencing hearing held on 25 August 2015, counsel for the appellant made a plea in mitigation on his behalf. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge sentenced the appellant to six months' imprisonment at hard labour on each of the three counts and ordered that the sentences should run concurrently.

4 The appellant immediately indicated his intention to appeal against his conviction and sentence and was admitted to bail pending the appeal. Within a few days (on 1 September 2015), the appellant filed the following grounds of appeal:

• “(a) The Learned Trial Judge erred in her summation.

• (b) The conviction is unsafe as there was insufficient evidence upon which to base a verdict of guilt.

• (c) The sentence is manifestly excessive.”

5 When the matter came on for hearing on 19 December 2017, Mr Peter Champagne for the appellant candidly told the court, in our view quite properly so, that he could find no basis on which to challenge the conviction. However, he indicated his intention to pursue the appeal against the sentence and the hearing was adjourned to 16 January 2018 allow counsel to obtain a copy of the social enquiry report for submission to the court. The report was in due course provided to us. On 16 January 2018, having considered the report and the submissions of counsel, we dismissed the appeal, affirmed the conviction and sentence and ordered that the sentence should commence immediately. These are the reasons which were then promised for that decision.

6 We take the facts of the case from the judge's findings, which are not now challenged by the appellant. At the material time, the appellant was assigned to the Cedar Valley Police Station and he had been known to the complainant for approximately 20 years prior to his arrest. The circumstances leading up to the appellant being charged and eventually convicted were as follows. At around 7:00 am on 10 October 2011, the appellant stopped at the complainant's gate and requested his car documents from him. Having inspected them, the appellant retained the complainant's documents. The complainant was then instructed to take the car to the Cedar Valley Police Station for further inspection, on the basis that the “licence disc” was not affixed to the car.

7 So the complainant duly took the car to the police station the following day. At that time, the appellant advised him that he could be charged $8,000.00 for not having the licence disc displayed. The appellant disputed this amount, whereupon the appellant went into his office to check “the government book”. Upon the appellant's return, he told the complainant that the amount was $5,000.00 and then asked him, “wha you a go do fi help yourself?” After a brief exchange, the complainant came to the understanding that he would have to give money to the appellant in exchange for the return of the documents for his car. In the light of this, the complainant placed $3,000.00 on the desk. The appellant then took up the money and asked for the licence disc for the car. The complainant indicated that it was in the possession of one Mr Waseman Thrue, who was then in Montego Bay. Mr Thrue subsequently sent the documents and a sum of money to the complainant, out of which the complainant kept $5,000.00 to give to the appellant to secure the release of his car documents.

8 On 31 October 2011, prior to handing over the money, the complainant visited the Anti-Corruption Branch (‘the ACB’) of the JCF to file a complaint against the appellant. A statement was recorded from him by Woman Corporal Latoya Tomlinson and the serial numbers of the five $1,000.00 notes which made up the $5,000.00, were recorded and the notes initialled by him. The complainant, accompanied by a team from the ACB, proceeded to the Cedar Valley Police Station at around 8:30 pm the same day. He was fitted with covert recording devices by a member of the team, Detective Corporal Kesrick Anderson. He then proceeded inside the station to meet with the appellant. Whilst there, he told the appellant “mi have something for you” and placed the $5,000.00 on the appellant's desk. The appellant took up the money off the desk and placed it in his desk drawer. The complainant made another request for the return of the car documents from the appellant and was told by the appellant to check with him that evening.

9 On leaving the appellant's office, the complainant signalled the ACB team, which subsequently entered the appellant's office. The appellant identified himself to the team as Sergeant Glenford Campbell and was informed about the allegation which the complainant had made against him. The appellant was cautioned, his desk drawer was searched in his presence and $5,000.00 made up of five $1,000.00 notes was found. The money was examined and the serial numbers and initials matched those of the notes previously recorded at the ACB. The documents for the complainant's vehicle — the certificate of registration, original certificate of fitness and a licence disc — were requested and handed over to the police. The appellant was then arrested on reasonable suspicion of breaching the Act.

10 The entire incident was recorded on a video recorder by Detective Corporal Anderson and a DVD of the recording was admitted into evidence. The money and the documents were placed in envelopes, sealed and labelled and admitted into evidence at the trial of the appellant.

11 At the trial, the appellant made an unsworn statement in which he indicated that the complainant was suspected to be involved in stealing gas oil from a cell site and that it was while conducting these investigations that he discovered that the car in question had no licence disc. According to him, his request that the complainant drive the car to the station was refused and he was unable to transport the car to the police station. On the day of the incident, he saw the complainant enter the station and inquire about his car. The complainant then put his hand in his pocket, stretched across his desk, opened the desk drawer, dropped the money in it and hurriedly left. He said he made no arrangements to solicit cash for the return of the documents. Shortly thereafter, a group of police officers entered the office and told him of the allegations. They proceeded to search the desk drawer and he observed them removing...