R v Green

JurisdictionJamaica
JudgeLewis, J.
Judgment Date29 November 1963
Neutral CitationJM 1963 CA 11
Date29 November 1963
CourtCourt of Appeal (Jamaica)
Docket NumberNo.78 of 1963

Court of Appeal

Cundall, P.; Lewis, J.; Henriques, J.

No.78 of 1963

R.
and
Green
Appearances

Mr.L. G.Barnett for the Crown

Mr.D.H. McFarlane for the appellant

Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction (Obstruction)

Criminal Law - Sentence — Obstructing Customs Officer's attempt to search.

Lewis, J.
1

On the 19 th of March, 1963, the appellant was convicted by the Resident magistrate for the parish of Kingston of the offence of obstructing a Customs Officer in searching him, he being a person liable to be searched under the Customs Law contrary to section 193, subsection 4, of the Customs Law chapter 89. From that conviction and the sentence imposed, he has appealed.

2

The case for the prosecution depended upon the evidence of Cleveland Walker, a Customs Officer (the complainant), who said that on the 27 th of January, 1963, between 7 and 8 o'clock he was on petrol at the Palisadoes Airport, and from a vantage point he saw the appellant (who is employed at Palisadoes Airport as a line crew man) leave the aircraft with certain packages and put them into a van and then removed a package from the van and put it on the gangway leading into the plane. He said that hecalled to the appellant, who did not answer but went into the plane. On investigation he foundthat it was a blue bag containing a quantity of ice cubes. He continued to watch the appellant and he says he saw him go off with another package from the aircraft and put it somewhere, but not in the van. He continued to watch him, and eventually he saw a closed van come up, and the appellant placed two blue packages in the van, which then drove away. The appellant then came across to where he the complainant was sitting, and made him know that he had seen him watching him, and abused him. The complainant turned away from the appellant and went off to follow the van; the van arrived at the hangar and there the complainant said saw the appellant with his pockets bulging, unloading two packages from the van; he went up to him and told him either, “I want to see what is in your pockets and also in the two bags” or, as be said in cross-examination, “Show me what is in your pockets. He said the appellant thereupon assaulted him; there was a struggle and they fell to the ground; but he never succeeded in finding out what was in the appellant's pockets,

3

The appellant's case was that the complainant, because of some previous dispute with a relative of his, had taken advantage of his powers, had accosted him, asking him what he had in the packages which he had in his pockets, and that when be put his hand into his pocket to take it out to show him he had knocked him down and jumped on him and otherwise assaulted him.

4

The learned Resident Magistrate accepted the story of the complainant Green and convicted the appellant.

5

The first matter that perhaps might be referred to is the fact that this case was struck out some months ago for want of appearance of the appellant; then in July, some time later, it was relisted because the court thought that the grounds of appeal contained an arguable point. But it was not until the day before yesterday, two days ago, that the court received notice that it was desired to argue supplementary grounds of law. The court has repeatedly referred to the fact that counsel tend to delay the filing of supplementary grounds of appeal until the very last moment, thereby taking both the Crown and the court by surprise; and this has the effect, in many cases, of lengthening argument on points which might speedily be dealt with if the crown and the court had ample notice of the grounds. While the court does not desire to shut out an arguable ground at any time, we desire to repeat what we have said before: that counsel should be prompt in filing their supplementary grounds of appeal.

6

The first of the supplementary grounds, which the appellant obtained, leave to argue was directed to the jurisdiction of the learned Resident Magistrate, and stated that the case was wrongly heard by the learned Resident magistrate in the purported exercise of her Special Statutory summary Jurisdiction, but that no such jurisdiction was conferred by the Customs Law. After counsel had argued this supplementary ground at some length, the court adjourned; and yesterday the court drew counsel's attention to section 65 of the judicature to the resident Magistrate in prosecutions for offences for the appellant then said that he was satisfied that this section would give a Resident magistrate the necessary jurisdiction to deal with this matter. He abandoned that ground of appeal and proceeded to argue the other grounds.However, this morning he sought to retract that statement. Having regard to the view the court has formed with regard to another ground to appeal, the court does not consider it necessary to have the question of jurisdiction re-argued or to grant leave to the appellant to withdraw his abandonment.

7

The substantive ground of appeal, as amended during the course of the argument, is that the evidence, which was led before the learned Resident magistrate, did not disclose the offence, which is created by the section and with which the appellant was charged. Learned counsel out his arguments under three heads: first of all, that...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT