Crookendale v Commissioner of Police

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Williams, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 03 March 2000
• Neutral Citation: BB 2000 CA 11
• Docket Number: Magisterial Appeal No. 6 of 1998
• Court: Court of Appeal (Barbados)
• Date: 03 March 2000

Court of Appeal

Williams, C.J.

Moe, J.A.

Williams, J.A.

Magisterial Appeal No. 6 of 1998

Crookendale

and

Commissioner of Police

Mr. R. Thorne for appellant

Mr. D. Saddler for respondent.

Practice and procedure - Election of mode of trial — Appellant convicted and fined for offence of tracking in a controlled drug — Appeal filed on ground that record of proceedings did not reflect whether appellant was put to his election as to whether he was consenting to summary trial — Whether there had been a breach of the statutory obligations imposed on the magistrate — Whether in cases where two or more informations are heard together a note on one information relating to the cases being tried together is a record on the face of the proceedings — Appeal dismissed — Conviction and sentence affirmed.

Williams, C.J.

1 On January 24, 1997 the appellant Kelvin Crookendale was convicted by a magistrate of the following offences committed on December 7, 1995:–

• (1) unlawfully having in his possession a controlled drug, to wit, cannabis contrary to section 6(2) of the Drug Abuse (Prevention and Control) Act, 1990-14;

• (2) having in his possession a trafficable quantity of a controlled drug, to wit, cannabis in contravention of section 18(2) of the said Act; and

• (3) having in his possession a controlled drug, to wit, cannabis which was intended by him for supply in contravention of section 5(1) of the said Act.

2 He was fined $25,000.00 to be paid in 3 months or 2 years imprisonment for the trafficking offence and convicted reprimanded and discharged on the other two.

3 The case for the prosecution was based on the evidence of Police Sergeant Knight and Constable Yearwood and the appellant gave evidence and called one witness Lennox Harris. The Magistrate after reviewing the evidence said:–

“The issue therefore before the court was a question of fact namely whether the accused knew that he was in possession of a control drug and the onus lies with the prosecution to prove this. Having seen and observed the witnesses for the respondent and the appellant, the court was impressed with the manner in which the officers gave their evidence and accepted it in its totality. The officers' evidence was given clearly and without any contradiction and they were very credible witnesses. The appellant's evidence was not strong and his sole witness by his own admission stated that he did not see everything that happened that day and offered little assistance to this Court. The court therefore did not accept the appellant's evidence that he asked that the marijuana be removed from his premises and was therefore not aware that it remained.”

4 The evidence amply supports the magistrate's findings. Sergeant Knight testified that on December 7, 1995 he was executing a search warrant at the appellant's home at Skeete's Road, Jackman, St. Michael and while searching the bathroom and the yard he found a white plastic bag hanging on the wall in the bathroom. This bag, he said, contained a transparent plastic bag with a quantity of vegetable matter as well as a plastic bag marked “Julie N Supermarket” which too had in it a quantity of vegetable matter. The officer had previously testified that he had searched the appellant and found in his right pants pocket a partly burnt cigarette and a piece of beige plastic and that these two items both contained vegetable matter which he suspected to be cannabis. All the vegetable matter was taken for analysis and the analyst's report was that it was indeed cannabis, the total amount being 765.75 grams.

5 According to Sergeant Knight he asked the appellant to account for the items found in his pocket and cautioned him to which he replied:– “That is some weed I did smoking and I did gwine smoke the one in the tape later.”

6 The appellant himself testified in cross-examination:–

“I have resided at Skeete's Road all my life — my grandmother and my two children also reside there. Bathroom is mine that I would use. House and bathroom under my control. I knew stuff was on property — but I did not know where it was placed. I had knowledge of marijuana being on my premises. I told them to take it away. I did not know that it remained on my property. During search bag with marijuana found on my premises.”

7 So that not only was the cannabis in his physical custody and under his control but he admitted that he knew that the substance in the bathroom was cannabis.

8 The main ground of appeal is that “the record of the proceedings is defective in that it does not reflect whether the appellant was put to his election as to whether he was consenting to summary trial.”

The Magistrates Jurisdiction and Procedure Act Cap. 116

9 Sections 44(1) and (2), 46(1), 119 and 139(2) of the Magistrates Jurisdiction and Procedure Act, Cap. 116 are relevant to the point raised. They enact as follows:–

• “44(1) Where, on the enquiry by a magistrate into any of the offences provided for in sections 36 and 40, it is proved to the satisfaction of the magistrate that the moneys or property which are the...