Moore v the Commissioner of Police

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Worrell, J.,Rocheford, J.
• Judgment Date: 13 March 1987
• Court: Divisional Court (Barbados)
• Docket Number: No. 31 of 1984
• Date: 13 March 1987

Divisional Court

Worrell, J.; Rocheford, J.

No. 31 of 1984

Moore

and

The Commissioner of Police

Mr. E.L. Hinds and Mr. K. Wiltshire for the appellant.

Mr. E.G. Husbands for the respondent.

Practice and procedure - Charge of unlawful possession — Whether defective in not stating that appellant failed to give satisfaction to magistrate as to how he came into possession of windows — Magistrate's Jurisdiction and Procedure Act, Cap. 116, s. 45 — Not necessary to state all elements of offence provided specific offence of which accused is convicted is described and particulars necessary to give reasonable information of the nature of the charge is set out — Appeal against conviction dismissed.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 This is an appeal by Omel Moore against the decision of the Magistrate for District “E” in which he convicted and sentenced him to six months imprisonment for unlawful possession.

2 The evidence disclosed that the appellant was seen around 9 p.m. by a police constable, who had known him for seven years, sitting on the pillion of a motor cycle holding two Oran windows. At the time the motor cycle was being driven by an unknown man on the Whim Road in the parish of St. Peter and the police constable was driving a police patrol car. The police constable became suspicious and he followed the appellant for some distance and eventually caught up with him. The driver of the motor cycle and the appellant jumped off. The appellant threw the windows on the ground and he and the driver made good their escape in some nearby bushes leaving the motor cycle and the windows on the spot. The motor cycle and the windows were taken to District “E” Police Station.

3 On the following morning the appellant went to District “E” Police Station where the police told him that he was seen the previous night on the Whim Road on a motor cycle with two windows and as the police approached him he dropped the windows and ran. The appellant replied that he was informed that the police had his motor cycle in their possession and that he had come to claim it but he knew nothing of the windows. After identifying the motor cycle as his property he said that on the previous night he went fishing with his brother-in-law and someone stole his motor cycle.

4 The appellant's brother-in-law was called as a witness for the prosecution at the trial. He denied that he went fishing with the appellant on the night in question. He said that on that night the appellant came to his mother's home about 11.30 p.m. and told him that the police had chased him on the Rock Road. He asked the appellant what had happened and the appellant told him that he was travelling on the Rock Road with a pair of windows and the police car came up behind him and he stepped off and ran. The appellant also told him that the police did not know him and he should say that they were at the sea together.

5 At the close of the case for the prosecution, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that there was no case to answer. It was said that the evidence...