Walcott v Commissioner of Police

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Court: Divisional Court (Barbados)
• Judge: Williams, J.,Husbands, J.
• Judgment Date: 15 June 1984
• Docket Number: Civil Suit No. 1 of 1984
• Date: 15 June 1984

Divisional Court

Williams, J.; Husbands, J.

Civil Suit No. 1 of 1984

Walcott

and

Commissioner of Police

Mr. A.P. Shepherd for the appellant.

Mr. G. Husbands for the respondent.

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Breach of Liquor License Act, Cap. 182 (B'dos) — Whether the conviction against the appellant for breach of section 52 of the Act could stand — Court found that the informant had to prove that the club was a registered club before the appellant could be properly convicted of breach of section 58 of the Act — Appeals allowed and convictions quashed since although the evidence disclosed that liquor was being sold, that was consistent with a breach of section 50 by an unregistered club as it was with the sale by a registered club of liquor in accordance with a licence — The fact that liquor was being sold on the premises could not constitute proof of registration.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 The Commissioner of Police laid the following informations against Robin Walcott in a District “A” Magistrate's Court—

• (1) that on the 18th day of February, 1983 Walcott being the proprietor/secretary of the registered proprietary club known as Carlisle Club did fail to keep on the premises of the club a copy of the rules of the club with any subsequent alterations authenticated by the signature of the Secretary, contrary to ss. 58 (c) and 80 of the Liquor Licences Act, Cap. 182;

• (2) that on the 18th day of February, 1983 Walcott being the proprietor/secretary of the registered proprietary club known as Carlisle Club did fail to keep on the premises of the club a register of all visitors and guests of members in which shall be recorded the name and address of all such visitors and guests as they are admitted to the club premises, contrary to ss. 58 (d) and 80 of the Liquor Licences Act, Cap. 182;

• (3) that on the 18th day of February, 1983 Walcott being the proprietor/secretary of the registered proprietary club known as Carlisle Club did fail to keep on the premises of the club a separate register of temporary and honorary members and all members other than ordinary or full members showing the date of election and period of membership contrary to ss. 58 (b) and 80 of the Liquor Licences Act, Cap. 182;

• (4) that on the 18th day of February, 1983 Walcott being the proprietor/secretary of the registered proprietary club known as Carlisle Club did fail to keep on the premises of the club all accounts for intoxicating liquor supplied to the club during the preceding six months, contrary to ss. 58 (f) and 80 of the Liquor Licences Act, Cap. 182;

• (5) that on the 18th day of February, 1983 Walcott kept a place of public entertainment without a licence for that purpose contrary to s. 3 of the Licenced Places of Public Entertainment Act, Cap. 181.

2 When the informations came on for hearing Walcott pleaded not guilty to the charges. Superintendent of Police Clyde Clarke and Dennis Greenidge, Clerk attached to the District “A” Magistrate's Court and to the Licensing Authority for District “A”, gave evidence for the informant. At the close of the informant's case counsel for the accused submitted that there was no case to answer on the ground, inter alia, that it had not been proved that the Carlisle Club was a registered proprietary club. The magistrate overruled the submission and Counsel rested on it. The magistrate dismissed the charge at (5) above and found Walcott guilty on the other charges. He imposed a fine of $25 in respect of the offence at (2) above and convicted, reprimanded and discharged him on the other charges. Walcott appealed and the magistrate gave the following reasons for his decision—

• “(3) The court found the following facts:

  • (a) that on 18th February 1983 at 11.35 p.m. Superintendent Clyde Clarke, Inspector Nurse, Station Sergeant Lashley and Police Constable Bowen went to the Carlisle Club, Bay Street and found about one hundred and fifty persons inside the club.

  • (b) That there was music being played and money was being collected as persons entered the club and that there were people dancing and drinking in the club.

  • (c) That the names of all the persons who entered the club were not written in the register.

  • (d) That the accused admitted to Superintendent Clarke that he did not have the relevant records and registers.

• (4) The court believed the evidence adduced for the prosecution and was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of four offences.”

3 When the appeal came on for hearing counsel relied basically on three grounds, two of which are set out in counsel's affidavit as follows—

• “2. That when the matter was first called on for hearing objection was taken to all of the four charges brought under the Liquor Licences Act, Cap. 182 … This objection was made on the grounds that the (each) information disclosed no offence since it failed to recite the proper section of the Act … which created the offence. When this objection was heard the Inspector who appeared for the Commissioner of Police sought and obtained leave of the court to amend the charges to insert the proper section. This leave was obtained over and above objections raised by counsel for the defence.

• 3. That further to this the magistrate was asked by counsel whether he was going to proceed on all five charges at the same time. This matter was raised before the trial since it appeared to counsel for the accused that the accused would be prejudiced if the prosecution proceeded on all five charges at the same time. It was pointed out to the learned magistrate by counsel appearing for the accused that in order for the accused to successfully defend the charge(s) brought under the Licensed Places of Public Entertainment Act, Cap. 181 … he would have to show that he was in...