R v Boucher

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Duffus, P.
• Judgment Date: 21 February 1966
• Neutral Citation: JM 1966 CA 18
• Docket Number: C.A.# 38 of 1965
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Date: 21 February 1966

Court of Appeal

Duffus, P.; Waddington, J.; Shelley, J. (Acting)

C.A.# 38 of 1965

R.

and

Boucher

Appearances:

Mr. R, White for the crown

Mr. B. Judah for the appellant

Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction (Unlawful cultivation of marijuana)

Criminal Law - Evidence

Duffus, P.

1 The applicant in this case Joseph Boucher was convicted of the offence of cultivating ganja, contrary to Section 7(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Laws Chapter 19.

2 Evidence was led on the part of the crown that between the first and the eighth of October, 1964, the applicant was seen working in a cultivation very close to his home in the parish of St. Elizabeth. Early in the morning of the eighth of October, a strong party of police went to the applicant's home pursuant to a search warrant issued under the Dangerous Drugs Law, and there they saw the applicant in his house, and the police proceeded to make a search. A fairly substantial quantity of prepared ganja was found in parcels in pockets of a jacket hanging up in the room occupied by the applicant. The applicant admitted that the jacket was his, but he denied that he had put the ganja in his pockets or that he knew that it was there. The police also found in the kitchen a pan in which were a quantity of dried stalks of the ganja plant. Having found these things the police then proceeded a short distance away to the applicant's field, where two police officers had previously seen him working between the first and the eighth of October. The applicant was taken along with the police, and in that field nine ganja plants were found growing. The police rooted them up and the applicant was charged with the offence of cultivating ganja. He was tried in the Circuit Court for the parish of St. Elizabeth, convicted and sentenced.

3 The appellant sought leave to appeal. His application was considered and refused by a single judge, and it first came before this court on the 22nd of September, when on the application of learned counsel for the applicant it was adjourned pending the receipt of a full transcript of the evidence which there appears to have been most undesirable delay in supplying, by the shorthand-writers in the court below. Learned counsel for the applicant sought today to be permitted to argue a number of supplementary grounds of appeal. The court listened to the arguments in support of the reasons why he should be permitted to argue these supplementary grounds, but with one exception the court was not satisfied that there was any good reason shown why these late grounds should now be argued.

4 The original application for leave to appeal contained the following ground:

“That the learned trial judge wrongfully admitted evidence, the prejudicial effect of which was too great and outweighed the probative effect of such evidence, namely, evidence of the possession of ganja which was not the subject of the charge.”

5 It was the submission of learned counsel for the appellant before us today, that the learned judge erred when he admitted, in spite of objections taken, the evidence as to the finding of the ganja in the pockets of the appellant's jacket in his house, and the finding of the ganja stalks in the kitchen. We listened with interest to the submissions made by learned counsel.

6 The rule in cases of this nature was succinctly stated by Lord Alverstone, C.J. in the case of R. v. Bond (1906) 2 K. B. 389 at p. 394 which was referred to by this court in the case of R. v. Larman (1964) 6 W.I.R. 550 at p. 557. The rule is this:–

“The general rule of law applicable in such cases can be clearly stated. It is that, apart from express statutory enactments, evidence tending to show that the accused had been guilty of criminal acts other...