Taffaine Rowe v R

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Brooks JA
• Judgment Date: 02 December 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] JMCA Crim 34
• Docket Number: RESIDENT MAGISRATE'S CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 3/2015
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Date: 02 December 2015

[2015] JMCA Crim 34

JAMAICA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon Mr Justice Morrison P (AG)

The Hon Mr Justice Brooks JA

The Hon Miss Justice P Williams JA (AG)

RESIDENT MAGISRATE'S CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 3/2015

Between

Taffaine Rowe

and

R

ORAL JUDGMENT

Brooks JA

1 The appellant Mr Taffaine Rowe was convicted in the Resident Magistrate's Court for the parish of Saint Elizabeth on 26 November 2014 for the offences of possession of and dealing in, ganja. He was fined $15,000.00 in respect of the offence of possession and $131,200.00 in respect of the dealing.

2 Mr Rowe has appealed against his convictions and sentences. He filed nine grounds of appeal as follows:

• ‘1. That the learned Resident Magistrate Her Honour MRS. SONYA WINT-BLAIR, erred in her verdict delivered on the 26 ^th day of November 2014.

• 2. That the exhibits were not tendered in court or an explanation given for its absence.

• 3. That the Defendant/Appellant was denied the opportunity to cross examine on the exhibits.

• 4. That there was no identification of the Defendant/Appellant.

• 5. That there was a discrepancy in the weight of the ganja.

• 6. That the Certificate states that the ganja was labelled ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ whilst the Certificate receipt states that the ganja was labelled ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘A’.

• 7. That no evidence was given by the person who collected the certificate from the Analyst.

• 8. That only part of the ganja was tested.

• 9. That the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence.’

3 The grounds may however be grouped under three headings namely:

• 1. Error in the identification of the accused.

• 2. Error with the exhibits.

• 3. Error in the verdict.

4 Before examining these headings, it is necessary to give a brief outline of the evidence that was adduced by the prosecution in its case against Mr Rowe.

The prosecution's case

5 Detective Corporal Kerry-Ann Maitland was with a party of police officers that went into the Homestead area of Saint Elizabeth on 11 August 2012. On approaching a hut in bushes there, she saw several men attending to vegetable matter that was on a tarpaulin. The substance resembled ganja.

6 On the approach of the police, the men ran in different directions but she held on to one, whom she identified as Tafari Rowe. The first name of the person is important. Apparently all the other men escaped because it was only the vegetable matter, which the police placed in three bags, and Mr Tafari Rowe, which were taken to the police station. There, Mr Tafari Rowe was arrested. On being cautioned he said ‘officer a just help mi a help out’. In cross-examination, Detective Corporal Maitland said that the vegetable matter weighed 56 pounds. She later agreed with a suggestion made by defence counsel, that it weighed 55 pounds.

7 On a later date, Detective Corporal Maitland took the bags with their contents to the Forensic Laboratory. She received a receipt for them. Some months later, she sent the receipt by way of another police officer to the Forensic Laboratory. That other police officer, later that day, gave her a certificate from a forensic analyst that bore the same Forensic Laboratory identification number that was on the receipt.

8 The certificate was submitted in evidence before the Resident Magistrate. It identified the relevant case as being Regina vs Taffaine Rowe for possession and dealing in ganja. The name Taffaine Rowe was that which was placed on the twoinformation forms to which Detective Corporal Maitland swore on 14 August 2012. The certificate showed that the vegetable matter in the bags was ganja and that it weighed 41 pounds. Detective Corporal Maitland testified that that was the ‘official weight’.

The error in the identification of the accused

9 The error in the identification was not restricted to the fact that Detective Corporal Maitland testified that she arrested Tafari Rowe but laid two information forms against Taffaine Rowe before the court. She also failed to identify, in court, the person whom she testified that she saw with the vegetable matter. More specifically, it does not appear that she was asked by the prosecutor to identify the person.

10 The failure is fatal to the conviction. It is essential, unless the defence indicates that identification is not in issue, that the prosecution identifies the person that it asserts is the offender.

11 This was established in the case ofSaunders v Johns [1965] Crim LR 49 [1965] Crim LR 49. The note for that case states in part:

‘The defendant was charged with exceeding the speed limit; at the beginning of the hearing his solicitor said that the issue was one of identity. A constable gave evidence that he had stopped the driver of a car which had been speeding; he gave no evidence identifying the defendant as the driver. The defendant's solicitor submitted ‘no case,’ but was overruled, the justices giving as their reasons that the defendant had appeared at court, that he had received the statement of facts, and that the driver of the car had prima facie committed an offence. The defence closed its case without calling any evidence. The justices then recalled the constable, who...