Green v Springer

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Williams, J.,Worrell, J.
• Judgment Date: 20 February 1976
• Court: Divisional Court (Barbados)
• Docket Number: No. 1 of 1976
• Date: 20 February 1976

Divisional Court

Williams, J.; Worrell, J.

No. 1 of 1976

Green

and

Springer

Mr. Hilary Nelson for the appellant

Mr. Elliot Mottley for the respondent

Practice and procedure - Adjournment.

Facts: The respondent was charged before a magistrate with two offences concerning the Barbados Harbours Act, Cap. 286 and its Regulations, 1972 — The magistrate dismissed both charges — The Comptroller appealed — The issues were whether the magistrate should have granted the Comptroller an adjournment to obtain legal representation and whether the magistrate should have granted counsel for the Comptroller an adjournment to study the evidence

Held: The magistrate exercised his discretion in the manner he though best and the court could not interfere.

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT:

1 The respondent was charged before the magistrate at District “A” with two offences arising out of an incident which took place at the Bridgetown Port on the night of July 14, 1975. One charge was that he attempted to take certain articles out of the port without having duly produced and delivered a pass-out check. This is an offence contrary to the Barbados Harbours Regulations, 1972, as amended. The other charge was that he used indecent language on the premises of the crown used for the purpose of the Port Department, an offence contrary to the Barbados Harbours Act, Cap. 286.

2 The magistrate dismissed both of the charges and the comptroller of customs has appealed to this court. Only one ground of appeal has been argued before us. It is as follows:

“That the refusal of the learned trail magistrate to grant the adjournment requested by the informant and by counsel on his behalf was unreasonable and in breach of the rules of natural justice and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”

3 The record discloses that on November 12 when the matter was called, the comptroller of customs appeared in person and requested an adjournment to enable him to be represented. This application was successfully resisted by counsel for the respondent. The magistrate observed that the comptroller of customs had been served with the summons on November 7, some five days previous to the hearing. Moreover, the magistrate thought it was desirable that the re-trial which had been ordered by the Divisional Court should take place with no further delay and noted that November 12, was the only day before the end of 1976 on which the case could be accommodated.

4 The case proceeded and at the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution which occupied the entire pre-lunch session, counsel for the respondent intimated that in the afternoon session he would be submitting that in law no case had been established against the respondent.

5 According to the magistrate's reasons he hinted to the appellant that he might wish to secure legal assistance to reply to the submission which would be made in the afternoon. At the commencement of the afternoon session Mr. Pierce, Crown Counsel, entered an appearance for the appellant and requested an adjournment to enable him to study the evidence. This application was resisted by the counsel for the respondent and the magistrate declined to grant the adjournment since, according to his reasons, he “did not think it just for the accused to be put to this further delay when it was open to the informant if he so desired, to have counsel with him in the morning session.”

6 Mr. Pierce renewed his application after Mr. Simmons for the respondent had made his submission but again without success.

7 Section 77(1) of the Magistrates...