R v Rerrie et Al
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | Rowe, P. |
| Judgment Date | 24 February 1988 |
| Neutral Citation | JM 1988 CA 25 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1987 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Jamaica) |
| Date | 24 February 1988 |
Court of Appeal
Rowe, P.; Wright, J.A.; Downer, J.A.
Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1987
F.M.G. Phipps, Q.C., Hugh Small, Q.C. and Trevor Ruddock for appellant Rerrie.
K. Churchill Neita and George Soutar for appellant Bennett.
A.J. Nicholson and George Thomas for appellant Grant.
G. McBean and E. Wright for the Crown.
Criminal law - Possession of ganja — Dealing in ganja — Taking steps preparatory to exporting ganja — Convictions — Appeals against convictions — Three accused — Constructive possession — Admissibility of alleged admission — Whether presence of fifteen armed policemen constituted threat express or implicit — Various grounds of appeal — No certificate by government analyst defining samples as ganja — Request for magistrate to disqualify herself on ground of bias — Whether magistrate's mind made up to convict before conclusion of trial — Failure of grounds of appeals — Appeals dismissed
In a trial which was conducted in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Lucea, divers days between December 8th, 1986 and February 25th, 1987, the appellants were convicted by Her Honour Miss Cynthia Kennedy far several breaches of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as under:
NORD RERRIE
-
(1) Inf. No. 3074/86 – Possession of Ganja. Fined $500.00 or three months hard labour.
-
(2) Inf. No. 3075/86 – Possession of Ganja. Fined $2,000.00 or six months hard labour and in addition to be imprisoned for three years hard labour.
-
(3) Inf. No. 3077/86 – Dealing in Ganja. Fined $10,000.00 or six months hard labour and in addition to be imprisoned for three years at hard labour.
-
(4) Inf. No. 3417/86 – Taking steps preparatory to exporting Ganja. Fined $1,000.00 or six months at hard labour and in addition to be imprisoned for three years at hard labour.
It was ordered that the custodial sentences were to be concurrent and that if the fines were not paid the sentences were to be consecutive the custodial sentences.
-
(1) Inf. No. 3075/85. Possession of Ganja. Fined $1,000.00 or six months hard labour.
-
(2) Inf. No. 3077/86. Dealing in Ganja. Fined $10,000.00 or six months hard labour and in addition to be imprisoned for eighteen months at hard labour.
-
(3) Inf. No. 3417/86. Taking steps preparatory to the exportation of Ganja. Fined $1,000.00 or six months at hard labour and in addition to be imprisoned for eighteen months at hard labour.
The custodial sentences were made concurrent and if the fines were not paid the alternative sentences should be consecutive to the custodial sentences.
-
(1) Inf. No. 3075/86 – Possession of Ganja. Fined $1,000.00 or six months hard labour.
-
(2) Inf. No. 3677/86 – Dealing in Ganja. Fined $10,000.00 or six months hard labour and in addition to be imprisoned for twelve months at hard labour.
-
(3) Inf. No. 3417/86. Taking steps preparatory to the exportation of Ganja. Fined $1,000.00 or six months at hard labour and in addition to be imprisoned for twelve months at hard labour.
It was ordered that the custodial sentences were to be concurrent and that if the fines were not paid the alternative sentences were to be consecutive to the custodial sentences.
Each accused gave verbal notice of appeal. Rerrie and Grant were remanded in custody while Bennett was given bail.
The appellant Rerrie owned real property at Industry Cove in Hanover. On this property stand two houses about ten chains apart, one described as “the cottage” and the other as the “upstairs house.” The entire property was fenced with barbed wire with two gates. The gate to the cottage was padlocked; the large gate leading to the upstairs house was not locked. That was the state of the promises on November 1st, 1986 when a party of armed policemen, led by Dep. Supt. Grant raided those premises. They saw, said the prosecution witnesses, the appellant Grant in the middle of the property, about five chains from each of the two buildings, using a tarpaulin to cover a large number of packets on the ground. Grant saw them, ran, was chased and captured and brought back to where he was seen. The senior officer identified himself to Grant, removed the tarpaulin, cut open the one hundred and seventy-two packets, each wrapped in plastic and taped with adhesive tape and discovered what appeared to be compressed ganja therein. When examined the ganja weighed 2,767 lbs. 9 oz. Beside the compressed packages, the police found one hydraulic jack, one iron ganja press, and two wooden ganja presses.
Dep. Supt. Grant cautioned the appellant Grant, showed him the packets and told him they contained ganja. Grant responded: “Yes sir, a Mr. Nerd Rerrie ganja, a him me work with, him pay me fe watch it that no one can't thief it.” Grant also said the jack and ganja presses were the property of Rerrie.
At the time of the discovery of the one hundred and seventy-two packets, Rerrie was not at those premises. He arrived at the upstairs building thirty to forty minutes later being driven in a car. He alighted from the car with the aid of two crutches. In the presence and hearing of the appellant Grant the Dept. Supt. identified himself to Rerrie, told Rerrie that he had seen the appellant Grant covering one hundred and seventy-two packets containing compressed ganja on Rerrie's property with a tarpaulin, that he had found the hydraulic jack and ganja presses and that the appellant Grant had said the ganja was owned by Rerrie who paid him to watch it. Rerrie said: “The man a mad man, Mr. Grant.” The appellant Grant retorted: “Me no mad, me work with you and you pay me fe watch you ganja, if me no work wid you wha me a do pon you property.”
Rerrie used a key to open the door to the upstairs house. On the evidence of Dep. Supt. Grant, as they entered the house Rerrie said: “Mr Grant me want to talk to you about the ganja you find on me property.” Dep. Supt. Grant cautioned Rerrie f reduced the caution to writing and invited Rerrie to sign caution which he did. Then Rerrie said:
“The ganja belongs to Mr. Larry Swartz of Rhodes Hall Property. He knows that me sick so he use some of my guys to press the stuff and do his work. The jack and the presses belong to Jerry Neish. The property is mine and they would be sending off the ganja on Wednesday. Swartz told me that whenever the ganja is exported to the U.S. he will give me some money. The Income Tax assess me for $7 million and I bargain with them and it work down to $2 million. I paid up leaving $80,000 and that is the reason I have to try a thing. I would give you my life to give me a chance. You are human being you can see with me in this time.”
Continuing with the narrative of Dep. Supt. Grant, he said he told Rerrie that he was there to search the house for guns, drugs and uncustomed goods. Rerrie used a key to open his bedroom and in a search of that room a carton box was taken from underneath his bed containing J$42,000.00 and a transparent plastic bag containing vegetable matter resembling ganja. Rerrie claimed the money. He was arrested for possession of the ganja and upon caution Rerrie said:
“Mr. Grant, me a rood man, you know sah, me always 100% behind the police — me wi give you any amount of money fe no charge me, just bun up de weed, me hear se you no tek bribe but just do that for me as a parishioner.”
Dept. Supt. Grant assured Rerrie that he was only doing his job, whereupon Rerrie said:
“Lord, me in a one little net now, a prison me a go Mr. Grant, why me newer tell you se the weed you find on my property is mine is because me ayes convicted fe the same thing already and me know so if me convicted again is prison me a go
The master-bedroom upstairs was searched and in it the police found three parcels of money, J$100,000.00 under the bed, J$80,000.00 in a clothes closet and in another closet J$24,040.00. Rerrie said that all the money was his which he kept at home in cash to avoid tax.
Accompanied by the appellant Rerrie, the police next searched an open section of the downstairs portion of the house and there found eight cardboard boxes on the floor, a large combination safe and large nylon bags with rope tied to the ends. Dep. Supt. Grant said that having regard to his past experiences, he told Rerrie that the bags ware used to carry compressed ganja and when exported they could be dropped in the sea, would float and would glow brightly if a light was shone upon them. Rerrie said he used these bags to convey flowers.
The eight carton boxes which wore all open contained similar “illuminated” bags to the one hundred and seventy-two bags with compressed ganja found under the tarpaulin. Some of the bags were full while others were partly full. Found also were eight roils of plastic tape and several rolls of adhesive tape similar to those used on the bags under the tarpaulin. Upon enquiry Rerrie said one Bennett had left the bags and tapes there and Rerrie delivered to the police two Customs Prescribed Forms, Customs Receipt and Air Way Bill and invoice. These are the documents which the prosecution alleges proved the appellant Bennett's association with the offence.
The appellant Grant was arrested on all the charges on which he was subsequently convicted and upon caution repeatedly said: “Is Mr. Rerrie weed.” Rerrie when arrested and cautioned made no statement.
Some twenty-five minutes after these arrests were made the appellant Bennett came to Rerrie's premises. Dep. Supt. Grant showed Bennett the result of the morning's search and the documents which Rerrie had produced to him. Bennett gave a written statement under caution which at trial he said contained the whole truth to which he could add nothing.
The cottage on Rerrie's premises was searched and items two including two walkie-talkie radios, one C.B. Base radio, a carton box containing fifteen...
To continue reading
Request your trial