Rance (Edmond) v The Commissioner of Correctional Service & DPP

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Hibbert, J ,Marsh J,,Smith J,
• Judgment Date: 11 June 2003
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2003] 6 JJC 1102
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Docket Number: SUIT NO. M-157 OF 2002
• Date: 11 June 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

IN THE FULL COURT

BEFORE:

THE HON. MR. JUSTICE HORACE MARSHTHE HON. MISS JUSTICE GLORIA SMITHTHE HON. MR. JUSTICE LLOYD HIBBERT

SUIT NO. M-157 OF 2002

BETWEEN

EDMOND RANCE

APPLICANT

AND

THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

1 ^ST RESPONDENT

AND

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

2 ^ND RESPONDENT

EXTRADITION - Writ of Habeas Corpus - - Insufficient evidence of possession or conspiracy to possess cocaine

Hibbert, J

1 Edmund Ranee the Applicant herein, seeks his release from custody, having been committed thereto, by His Honour Mr. Martin Gayle, Resident Magistrate for the Corporate Area, to await his surrender to the United States of America to stand trial for the offence of Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. In his application the Applicant relied on the following grounds:

• 1. That there was no evidence before the learned Resident Magistrate which was sufficient to show that the Applicant had at any time entered into an agreement to possess cocaine.

• 2. That evidence that the Applicant agreed to possess something which he believed to be marijuana was not sufficient to show that he had agreed to possess cocaine.

• 3. That to show that the Applicant was guilty of the offence of conspiracy to possess cocaine in the circumstances of this case the prosecution needed to show that his alleged associates had imported cocaine; but there was no such evidence.

• 4. That in particular there was no evidence that the material analysed and found to be cocaine by the analyst was material which was connected to the alleged conspiracy.

• 5. That the prosecution relied on statements made by alleged coconspirators in the absence of the Applicant at a time when they had been arrested and were no longer acting in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy, which evidence was inadmissible.

• 6. That by reason of the foregoing the learned Resident Magistrate erred in law in holding that there was sufficient evidence on which he could properly order the extradition of the Applicant.

2 In summary it is contended that although there is evidence to suggest that the Applicant conspired to possess marijuana there is no evidence to make out a prima facia case of conspiracy to possess cocaine, as evidence of a conspiracy to possess marijuana cannot be used to make out a case of conspiracy to possess cocaine.

3...