Reeves v Commissioner of Police

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Court: Divisional Court (Barbados)
• Judge: Douglas, C.J.,Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 23 May 1969
• Date: 23 May 1969

Divisional Court

Douglas, C.J.; Williams, J.

Reeves

and

Commissioner of Police

Appearances:

Mr. J.M. Adams for the appellant.

Mr. C.S. Payne for the respondent.

Evidence - Unsworn testimony of child admitted for defence — No statutory provision for admitting such testimony — Whether conviction invalidated by irregularity — Magistrates Jurisdiction and Procedure Act, 1956, s. 135(viii)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 Goulbourne Reeves was charged at Holetown Magistrate's Court with an assault on Manoah Gaskin which occasioned actual bodily harm. He elected to be tried summarily and was convicted of the offence. The magistrate imposed a fine of $25.00 payable in seven days with the alternative of one month's imprisonment. Reeves appealed to this court.

2 Three matters were argued on the hearing of the appeal:

• (i) that there was no evidence led for the respondent of actual bodily harm to Gaskin;

• (ii) that unsworn testimony of a child Mavis Reeves was given for the defence; counsel submitted that there was no statutory authority for this and that it constituted a substantial irregularity in that the appellant did not have an opportunity of presenting his evidence in the proper manner; and

• (iii) that the magistrate adjudicated on a question of title.

3 With respect to the first point, we agree with counsel for the appellant. Counsel for the respondent relied on R. v. Miller [1954] 2 All E.R. 529 but this case offers no assistance to him. That case decided that an assault which causes an hysterical and nervous condition is an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Lynskey, J. said [1954] 2 All E.R. 529 at 534:

“There is evidence that afterwards she was in a hysterical and nervous condition … There was a time when shock was not regarded as bodily hurt but the day has gone by when that could be said. It seems to me that if a person is caused hurt or injury resulting not in any physical injury, but in an injury to the state of his mind for the time being, that is within the definition of actual bodily harm.”

4 The matter before us is quite different. No evidence was led that there was any injury to Gaskin's state of mind. The appellant knelt on his stomach causing him to excrete. Gaskin also felt pain. But these circumstances are insufficient to constitute actual bodily harm.

5 On the second point we are of the view that though an irregularity did take place when the magistrate allowed the child to given unsworn testimony, yet in the circumstances this cannot affect the conviction of the appellant. In R. v. Surgenor [1940] 2 All E.R. 249 the...