R v Blair

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Judge: Carey, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 18 January 1989
• Neutral Citation: JM 1989 CA 14
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 1988
• Date: 18 January 1989

Court of Appeal

Carey, J.A.; Campbell, J.A.; Forte, J.A.

Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 1988

R

and

Blair

Appearances:

Messrs. Delroy Chuck and Robin Smith for appellant.

Miss Paula Llewellyn for the Crown

Criminal law - Bribery — Attempted bribery — Conviction — Fine and imprisonment — Maximum sentence imposed — Whether sentence to run concurrently — Order vacated — Sentence to run concurrently on count 3 — Other aspects of decision affirmed.

Carey, J.A.

1 In the Kingston Resident Magistrate's Court held at Sutton Street on the 5th of April, 1988, before His Honour Mr. C. S. Orr, this appellant was convicted on an indictment which contained four counts, three of which charged him with the offence of bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the fourth count averring attempted bribery. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment at hard labour in respect of the first three counts, but on the fourth count the sentence of two years was suspended for three years. Additionally, he was ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 in respect of each of the four counts, in default of payment he was ordered to be imprisoned for six months at hard labour. It was further ordered that in respect of count 1 he should pay the amount of $4,300 which represented the amount of money collected as a bribe white on count 2 that sum was $4,500. In relation to count 3, the amount was $2,000. He was also adjudged to be incapable of being elected or appointed to a public office for seven years from the date of his conviction and he was to forfeit the office held by him on that date. Against that conviction and sentence the appellant now comes before this Court.

2 In so far as the question of the conviction was concerned, Mr. Chuck with commendable pragmatism has conceded that there was no point of merit to be argued. He did put forward a ground which was in the following form, namely:

“That the learned resident magistrate in starting the trial and continuing it when a fiat from the Director of Public Prosecutions had not been obtained ab initio breached a mandatory provision of section 10 of the Corruption Prevention Act which states as follows:–

‘A prosecution for an offence under this Part shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions’.”

3 It was pointed out to Mr. Chuck that when the order for indictment was made, there was, in the Court the necessary fiat from the Director of Public Prosecutions. There was therefore, no factual basis on which he could mount any argument in respect of that ground, a fact which as we said he has candidly conceded. The main burden of the submissions to us this morning, relate to the question of sentence and it is therefore, necessary to outline the facts upon which this appellant was convicted.

4 Shortly stated, between the 21st of November, 1987 and the 14th December, the appellant collected the amounts which...