Skeen (Anthony) v R

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: SMITH, J.A.:
• Judgment Date: 27 April 2007
• Neutral Citation: JM 2007 CA 20
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2007] 4 JJC 2705
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Date: 27 April 2007

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BEFORE:

THE HON. MR. JUSTICE SMITH, J.A THE HON. MRS. JUSTICE HARRIS, J.A THE HON. MR. JUSTICE DUKHARAN, J.A. (Ag.)

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 16/2006

ANTHONY SKEEN

V

R

Mr. Debayo Adedipe

Mrs. Caroline Williamson-Hay

CRIMINAL LAW - Malicious destruction of property

SMITH, J.A.:

1 The appellant Anthony Skeen, was convicted in the Resident Magistrate's Court for the parish of Manchester on April 5, 2006 on an indictment containing two counts. The first count charged the appellant and others with maliciously damaging the Spaldings Police Station. The second count charged him and another with maliciously damaging a Mazda motor car. On count 1 he was fined $80,000. 00 or 6 months imprisonment in default of payment. He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment on count 2.

2 On April 19, 2006 his attorney-at-law filed a Notice of Appeal with the following grounds:

• "1. The conviction is not supported by evidence.

• 2. The learned trial judge erred in finding that the appellant was identified. The evidence of identification was too poor to support a conviction.

3 Before us, Mr. Adedipe sought and obtained leave to argue the following Supplemental Grounds of Appeal.

• "1. The appellant's trial, conviction and sentence on both counts are nullities because no valid order for indictment was made against him. The purported information (No. 10760/02) on which the order for indictment was made does not name him or any person(s) as a person(s) against whom any charge or allegation was made and it is thus not an information.

• 2. The learned Resident Magistrate erred in law in overruling the submission of no case to answer made on behalf of the appellant. The state of the identification evidence was so poor at the close of the case for the crown that the learned resident magistrate ought to have terminated the trial and entered a verdict of acquittal in favour of the appellant.

• 3. Having ruled that there was a case to answer the learned Resident Magistrate ought to have acquitted the appellant at the end of the case for the defence because the evidence of identification that was led could not support a conviction."

4 Supplemental Ground 1

5 Mr. Adedipe for the appellant, submitted, with skill and force, that the purported information on which the learned Resident Magistrate's order is endorsed is invalid because it does not name the appellant as a person accused. It is not the information contemplated by s. 64(1) of the Justices of the Peace Jurisdiction Act or s. 272 of the Judicature (Resident Magistrates) Act (The Act). This fundamental defect, he submitted, renders the trial on counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment a nullity.

6 Counsel for the appellant referred to s. 272 of the Act, Monica Stewart v R 12 JLR 465, Thelwell v DPP and Another RMCA 56/98 delivered 26 ^th March, 1999.

7 Section 272 of the Act reads:

"On a person being brought or appearing before a Magistrate in Court or in Chambers, charged on information and complaint with any indictable offence, the Magistrate shall, after such enquiry as may seem to him necessary in order to ascertain whether the offence charged is within his jurisdiction, and can be adequately punished by him under his powers, make an order, which shall be endorsed on the information and signed by the Magistrate, that the accused person shall be tried, on a day to be named in the order, in the Court or that a preliminary investigation shall be held with a view to a committal to the Circuit Court."

8 In Monica Stewart v R (supra) the Court following its earlier decision in R v Williams 7JLR 129 held that the following words in s. 272 of the Judicature (Resident Magistrates) Law "the magistrate shall, after such enquiry as may seem to him necessary in order to ascertain whether the offence charged is within his jurisdiction... make an order..." constituted the condition precedent which the Resident Magistrate had to comply with before assuming any jurisdiction at all. The Court observed that compliance with this provision must be proved "in the manner stated by s. 272 that is, by an endorsement on the information signed by the magistrate..."

9 In the instant case it is not disputed that an enquiry was made by the Resident Magistrate. It is also not in dispute that an order was made by the magistrate. The contention of Mr. Adedipe is that information no. 10760/02 on which the order is endorsed is not valid in that it does not name the appellant or anyone at all as a person charged. Consequently the order on that information is bad. He pointed out that no order was made on information No. 10762/02 which charged the appellant with an indictable offence.

10 Information No. 10760/02 does not on its face, name the person or persons charged. The parish, informant, the date it was taken and sworn to, the statement of the offence-malicious destruction of property and the signature of the Justice of the Peace or Clerk of the Courts comprise the face of this information. However, the names of four persons-David Wright, Wain Foster, Gary Dorman and Carlos Bailey - appear on the back of the information as persons charged with the offence of malicious destruction of property.

11 On this information the following order is endorsed:

"Indict the accused persons before me this day for the offence of Malicious Destruction of Property, Contrary to section 42 of the Malicious Injuries to Property Act. Add a second count as per info. 10761 and 10762/02 against David Wright and Anthony Skeen respectively for the offence of Malicious Destruction of Property contrary to section 42 of the Malicious injuries to Property Act."

12 The order was signed by the magistrate. Two questions arise for the determination of this court:

• (1) The validity of information 10760/02

• (2) If the information is valid whether the magistrate could properly endorse the order on the information which does not itself charge the appellant, for the joint trial of the appellant and others on indictment.

13 The validity of Information 10760/62

14 As stated before on the 'face' of this information there is no mention of the person or persons charged with the offence. The names of the persons charged are on the back of this information. An information need not be in any particular form. It must state the name(s) of the person(s)...