Harrison v The Queen

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Judge: Kerr, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 19 May 1982
• Neutral Citation: JM 1982 CA 22
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1982
• Date: 19 May 1982

Court of Appeal

Kerr, J.A., Rowe, J.A, Wright, J.A (Ag.)

Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1982

Harrison

and

The Queen

Appearances:

Mr. Delano Harrison and Mr. A.J. Hutchinson for the applicant.

Mr. F. A. Smith for the Crown.

Criminal Practice and procedure - Failure of Magistrate to set out findings of fact on which he based his verdict as required by Judicature (Resident Magistrate) Act — Verdict not rendered invalid as a result.

Kerr, J.A.

1 On May 19, 1982, this application was refused and we then promised to put our reasons in writing. Regrettably and perhaps because reasons are not usually reserved in applications of this nature the matter was oversighted and attention but recently adverted to this hitherto unfulfilled promise.

2 The applicant, a Corporal of Police, was convicted in the Resident Magistrate's Court on an indictment which charged him with bribery contrary to section 4 of the Corruption Prevention Act for that he on the 21st November, 1980 in the parish of St. Catherine obtained from Marion Tulloch, the sum of $300 as a gratification for showing favour in the exercise of his official functions to Ralston Morgan and Lambert Morgan who were charged with a breach of the Dangerous Drugs Law, namely cultivating ganja.

3 The court (Carberry, Carey, White, JJ.A.) in dismissing his appeal against conviction held that it could not disagree with the [1] learned resident magistrate who expressed himself as being impressed by the witness Marion Tulloch and with respect to defence submission that Talloch had an interest to serve and therefore her evidence required corroboration, the court was of the view that there was ample corroboration of her evidence.

4 The questions formulated as involving points of law of exceptionable public importance and meriting a further appeal to Her Majesty in Council were:

• “1. In a trial without a jury is it incumbent on the tribunal to demonstrate that the status of a witness, as an accomplice, vel non, or such as has an interest to serve has been considered?

• 2. Would the position be any different when there is a positive statutory requirement for the tribunal to record his “findings of fact”?

• 3. If the answer to 1 or 2 is the affirmative, would the failure of the tribunal so to do, effect a substantial miscarriage of justice.”

5 Section 291 of the Judicature (Resident Magistrates) Act so far as is relevant reads:

“Where any person charged before a...