R v Williams

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Watkins, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 07 April 1976
• Neutral Citation: JM 1976 CA 18
• Docket Number: No. 110 of 1975
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Date: 07 April 1976

Court of Appeal

Luckhoo, P. (Ag.); Hercules, J.A.; Watkins, J.A. (Ag.)

No. 110 of 1975

R

and

Williams

Appearances:

Mr. W.E.C. Dawes for the appellant.

Dr. W. McCalla for the Crown.

Criminal Law - Appeal against Conviction — Vagrancy

1 Watkins, J.A. (Ag.): The appellant, Lebert Williams, was convicted before Her Hon. Mrs. R.C. Walcott, a resident magistrate for the parish of Kingston on May 14, 1975 on an information which laid under sections 6 and 7 of the Vagrancy Act charged that “he with force at King Street and within the jurisdiction of the Court unlawfully being a suspected person was on March 28, 1975 frequenting a certain public place, to wit King Street and Harbour Street in the parish of Kingston with intent to commit a felony.” On February 25, 1976 we heard and dismissed the appeal, affirmed the conviction, and ordered that the fine of $50 imposed should be paid not later than March 10, 1976, failing which the custodial sentence of 3 months hard labour would take effect. We undertook to put our reasons in writing and now do so.

2 Constable Franklyn Wynter of the City Centre Police Station, the sole witness for the prosecution, was on patrol duty in plain clothes along Church Street in Kingston at about 10 a.m. on Friday March 28, 1975. He said that he observed the appellant vigorously trying the handle of the right front door of a Rover motorcar parked along that street. The windows of the car were closed. So also was the door, which the appellant had tried to open. After looking around, the appellant withdrew from the Rover car and proceeded down Church Street to Harbour Street and having walked some six chains along this latter street he stopped where a green-coloured Escort motorcar had been parked. The appellant pushed his head and hands through the open right front window of the Escort car and the Constable who had been trailing him saw at a distance movements of the appellant's body but did, not notice him take anything from the car. The appellant next proceeded up King Street and in the vicinity of Water Lane he tried to open with a chisel a pivot window of a blue Austin Cambridge motorcar parked in King Street. Unsuccessful once more, the appellant moved off, but was apprehended by the constable and charged.

3 The defence was a complete denial of the constable's testimony as to search or attempted search of the motor vehicles.

4 Before us, as indeed in the court below, Mr. Dawes on behalf of the appellant urged three grounds, namely, that

• (i) in view of the fact that the information did not charge a frequenting in Church Street evidence admitted as to the incident there was irrelevant, inadmissible and prejudicial to the appellant.

• (ii) each of the incidents having taken place in a separate street they should each have been viewed in isolation from each other and accordingly, and in particular having regard to the dictionary meaning of the word “frequent”, namely “to go often or habitually to a place”, no frequenting could be said to have been made out on the evidence.

• (iii) even if the incidents at Harbour and King Streets were looked at together they did not make out a case of frequenting, as together they relate only to one visit on one occasion, which did not amount to “frequenting.”

5 In examining the first ground of appeal consideration of the terms of the sections of the Act under which the appellant was charged becomes necessary. Section 6 so far as relevant states:

“Every person coming within any of the following provisions shall be deemed a rogue and vagabond-

(c) Every suspected person, or reputed thief, frequenting…any public place whatsoever or any place adjacent to a public place with intent to commit a felony.

And section 7, so far as relevant, is to the following effects:

Every person convicted of being a rogue and vagabond shall be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding twelve months….”

6 It is apparent therefore from section 6(c) that in order to convict of the relevant offence proof is necessary that (a) the person charged is a suspected person or reputed thief (b) he frequented a public place or other prescribed place and (c) that he did so with a felonious intent. Who then is a suspected person? In Rawlings v. Smith [1938] 1 All E.R.11 Smith had been charged under section 4 of the Vagrancy Act of England, a section in all relevant and material particulars similar to our local Act. It was proved that at various times of the day and in different places, the respondent was looking, into and trying to open the doors of unattended motorcars standing...