Cadogan v Commissioner of Police
| Jurisdiction | Barbados |
| Judge | Williams, J.,Worrell, J. |
| Judgment Date | 17 September 1982 |
| Court | Divisional Court (Barbados) |
| Docket Number | No. 35 of 1981 |
| Date | 17 September 1982 |
Divisional Court
Williams, J., Worrell, J.
No. 35 of 1981
Mr. D.A. Simmons for the appellant.
Mr. O. Adams for the respondent.
Constitutional law - Fundamental rights and freedoms — Right of persons charged with criminal offence to be given adequate time and facility for the preparation of his defence.
On Friday last we allowed this appeal and quashed the conviction and sentence. We stated that we would give our reasons today and we now do so.
The appeal was against a conviction by a magistrate for driving a motor vehicle at a speed in excess of that prescribed by law. The charge against the appellant was that on December 26, 1979 he drove a motor car on Lemon Arbor Road, St. John at 80 miles per hour — 50 miles per hour greater than the prescribed limit.
The ground of appeal was that the magistrate erred in law when he refused to allow the appellant an adjournment for the purpose of retaining an attorney-at-law. The case came on for hearing on Monday, March 3, 1980. When the case was called the appellant pleaded not guilty and the magistrate asked the police prosecutor to call his first witness. At that point the appellant stated that he would like time to get a lawyer. The magistrate asked the appellant when he had received the summons notifying him that the case would be heard that day. The appellant replied that he had received it about four or five days ago. The magistrate checked the summons and it appeared that the appellant had been served on the previous Tuesday, February 26. The magistrate asked the appellant if he had made any attempt to get a lawyer. He said no that he had not but that he now wanted one. The magistrate then informed the appellant that the matter was simple and straightforward, that the word “summary” in summary jurisdiction was not meaningless and that the court had very little work to do that day and plenty of time to hear his case and intended to hear it. He did so and fined the appellant $800.
Counsel for the appellant referred in his argument to Allette v. Chief of Police (1965) 10 W.I.R. 243 and R. v. Thames Magistrates' Court Exp. Polemis [1974] 2 All E.R. 1219. In Green v. Springer (1976) 11 Barb. L. R. 19 this Court stated at p. 22—
“Whether or not in a particular case a discretion not to adjourn was judicially exercised depends in the last resort on the circumstances of the case. Relevant...
To continue reading
Request your trial