Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
  • About Us
    • Brief History of the Court
    • Court Overview
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Past Chief Justices
      • Sir Hugh Rawlins
      • Sir Brian George Keith Alleyne
      • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Adrian Saunders
      • Hon. Sir Charles Michael Dennis Byron
      • Rt. Hon. Sir Vincent Floissac
      • Honourable Sir Lascelles Lister Robotham
      • More..
        • Hon. Neville Algernon Berridge
        • Sir Neville Peterkin
        • Sir Maurice Herbert Davis
        • Justice P. Cecil Lewis
        • Sir Allen Montgomery Lewis
    • Judicial Officers
      • Justices of Appeal
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Davidson Kelvin Baptiste
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Mario Michel
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Gertel Thom
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Paul Anthony Webster [Ag.]
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Gerard Farara, KC
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Trevor Ward, KC
      • High Court Judges
      • Masters
    • Court of Appeal Registry
    • Court Connected Mediation
      • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Mediation Publications
    • More…
      • Career Opportunities
      • Legal Internship
      • Transcript Requests
      • Directory
  • Judgments
    • Privy Council
    • Caribbean Court of Justice
    • Court Of Appeal Judgments
    • High Court Judgments
    • Digests of Decisions
    • Country
      • Anguilla
      • Antigua & Barbuda
      • Grenada
      • Montserrat
      • Saint Kitts and Nevis
      • Saint lucia
      • Saint Vincent & The Grenadines
      • Territory of the Virgin Islands
    • Year
      • 1972 – 1990
        • 1972
        • 1973
        • 1975
        • 1987
        • 1989
        • 1990
      • 1991 – 2000
        • 1991
        • 1992
        • 1993
        • 1994
        • 1995
        • 1996
        • 1997
        • 1998
        • 1999
        • 2000
      • 2001 – 2010
        • 2001
        • 2002
        • 2003
        • 2004
        • 2005
        • 2006
        • 2007
        • 2008
        • 2009
        • 2010
      • 2011 – 2019
        • 2011
        • 2012
        • 2013
        • 2014
        • 2015
        • 2016
        • 2017
        • 2018
        • 2019
    • Judgment Focus
  • Sittings & Notices
    • Schedule of Sittings
    • Court of Appeal Sittings
    • Chamber Hearing (Appeals)
    • Case Management (Appeals)
    • High Court Sittings
    • Status Hearings
    • Special Sittings
    • Notices
  • Court Procedures & Rules
    • ECSC Court of Appeal Rules
    • ECSC (Sittings of the Court) Rules, 2014
    • Civil Procedure Rules [WEB]
    • ECSC Civil Procedure Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to Nov 2015]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2014
      • ECSC Civil Procedure (Amendment) (No.2) Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to May 2014]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2011
    • ECSC Criminal Procedure Rules
      • Criminal Procedure Rules SI No. 22 of 2015
    • ECSC Sentencing Guidelines
    • Non Contentious Probate Rules and Administration of Estates
    • Family Proceedings Rules
    • More..
      • Election Petition Rules
      • Legal Profession Disciplinary Procedure Rules (St. Lucia)
      • Code Of Judicial Conduct
      • Court Forms
        • Introduction of E-Filing
        • BVI Commercial Division E-Filing
        • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Court Proceedings Fees
      • SILK Application Procedure
      • Practice Directions
      • Practice Notes
      • Video Conferencing Protocols
  • News & Publications
    • ECSC Media Gallery
    • Annual Reports
    • Appointments
    • Press Releases
    • Papers & Presentation
      • Opening of the Law Year Addresses
    • Tributes
  • E-Litigation
    • E-Litigation Portal
    • E-Litigation Instructional Videos
    • ECSC E-Litigation Portal User Information
    • Electronic Litigation Filing and Service Procedure Rules
    • Notices of Commencement
    • E-Litigation Publications
  • J.E.I
    • JEI History
    • Structure of JEI
    • JEI Chairman
    • Mandate, Objectives, Standards
    • Programmes Archive
      • Conferences
      • Programmes & Projects
      • Symposiums
      • Training
      • Workshops
    • Upcoming Activities
more
    • About Us
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Mediation
    • Careers
  • Contact
  • Saved for Later
 Home  E-Litigation Portal
  •  Court Procedures And Rules
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Court Forms
    • Election Petition Rules
    • Practice Directions
  •  Judgments
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
    •  Digest of Decisions
  •  Sittings
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
  • Sign In
    
    Minimize Search Window
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Category {{SelectedFilters.length}}x Categories 
    •       {{item.title}} {{selectedCountries.length}}x Countries Country 
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Year {{selectedOptions.length}}x Options 
    
    Sorry can't find what you're looking for try adjusting your search terms
    Appeal
    {{doc._source.post_title}}
    Page {{indexVM.page}} of {{indexVM.pageCount}}
    pdf
    Home » Digests of Decisions » 10th – 13th June 2014

    1
    COURT OF APPEAL SITTING
    SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS
    10th – 13th June 2014
    APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS
    Case Name: Craig Bradshaw
    v
    The Director of Public Prosecutions
    [SKBHCRAP2011/0009]
    Date: Tuesday, 10th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, QC, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. John Cato
    Respondent: Ms. Greatess Gordon for the Director of Public
    Prosecutions
    Issues: Appeal against sentence – Unlawful carnal knowledge –
    Virtual complainant was 13 at time of offence and
    became pregnant as a result – Whether sentence
    imposed by learned trial judge too harsh for first time
    offender
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    1. The appeal against sentence is allowed.
    2. The sentence of 20 years imposed by the trial judge
    is quashed and a sentence of 12 years is imposed.
    3. Time spent on remand to be taken into account.
    Reason: The Court found that although the learned trial judge
    had mentioned the guiding principles for sentencing,
    there was no evidence that he applied those principles
    2
    and the relevant cases.
    There was no evidence that the trial judge used a
    benchmark in this case. It did not appear that he
    started from a benchmark and then considered the
    aggravating and mitigating factors in order to arrive at
    the sentence which he imposed. Rather, he seemed to
    have started from the maximum sentence of life
    imprisonment and moved to 20 years, which was a
    wrong approach.
    Counsel on both sides agreed to a benchmark of 8
    years, which the Court accepted. Then, after weighing
    the strong aggravating factors against the mitigating
    factors, the Court considered a sentence of 12 years to
    be appropriate.
    The mitigating factors were as follows:
    a) The appellant was a first time offender;
    b) The appellant was a relatively young man;
    c) The appellant was known to be of good behavior
    and disposition generally;
    d) There was no violence other than that associated
    with the commission of this type of offence;
    e) The Social Inquiry Report stated that the
    appellant showed remorse.
    The aggravating factors were as follows:
    a) The appellant had sexual intercourse with a
    minor using no protective device and thus
    exposed the minor to infection and pregnancy;
    b) The minor became pregnant as a result of the
    offence.
    Case Name: Jermul Jules
    v
    The Director of Public Prosecutions
    [SKBHCRAP2011/0008]
    Date: Tuesday, 10th June 2014
    3
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, QC, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Dr. Henry Browne, QC
    Respondent: Mr. Travers Sinanan, Director of Public Prosecutions
    Issues: Appeal against conviction and sentence – Robbery –
    Record inadequate (missing some relevant pages) –
    Whether learned trial judge erred in failing to give
    proper direction on doctrine of recent possession
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    1. The appeal is allowed.
    2. The sentence is set aside and the conviction
    quashed.
    Reason: The Court noted that the Director of Public
    Prosecutions quite properly conceded that the learned
    trial judge erred in directing the jury on the doctrine of
    recent possession, which was what the case for the
    prosecution turned on. At trial, even after the Crown
    had sought to bring to the judge’s attention the
    direction that he ought to give, the one which was
    ultimately given was woefully inadequate and of no
    assistance to the jury.
    Case Name:
    Allister Forde
    v
    The Director of Public Prosecutions
    [SKBHCRAP2011/0024]
    Date: Tuesday, 10th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, QC, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    4
    Appearances:
    Appellant: In person
    Respondent: Mr. O’Neil Simpson
    Issues: Appeal against sentence – Shooting with intent
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    The matter is adjourned to next sitting of the Court of
    Appeal in the Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis
    at the instance of the appellant in order to instruct
    counsel.
    Reason: The appellant indicated that he wished to appeal his
    conviction as well as his sentence. He also wanted to
    retain and instruct counsel. The Court granted him
    some time to do so.
    Case Name: Ourtic Gileard
    v
    The Director of Public Prosecutions
    [SKBHCRAP2011/0025]
    Date: Tuesday, 10th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, QC, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: In person
    Respondent: Mr. O’Neil Simpson for the Director of Public
    Prosecutions
    Issues: Appeal against conviction and sentence – Robbery
    5
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    Hearing of the appeal is adjourned to next sitting of the
    Court of Appeal in the Federation of Saint Christopher
    and Nevis during the week of 27th – 31st October 2014.
    Reason: To give the appellant an opportunity to retain counsel.
    Case Name: Keithley Griffin
    v
    The Director of Public Prosecutions
    [SKBHCRAP2011/0010]
    Date: Tuesday, 10th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, QC, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Dr. Henry Browne, QC
    Respondent: Mr. O’Neil Simpson for the Director of Public
    Prosecutions
    Issues: Appeal against conviction and sentence – Unlawful
    carnal knowledge – Whether appellant was denied fair
    trial within meaning of section 10 of Saint Christopher
    and Nevis Constitution Order 1983 – Whether Crown
    was under an obligation to cause appellant, virtual
    complainant and infant child of virtual complainant to
    undergo DNA testing in circumstances where the
    accused, having been confronted about the offence
    made following single statement to police officers: “I
    don’t know anything about that, test me if you want” –
    Whether sentence imposed by learned trial judge
    unduly severe – Application of s. 154 of the Evidence
    Act (Act No. 30 of 2011, Laws of Saint Christopher and
    Nevis)
    6
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    1. Appeal against conviction is dismissed. The
    conviction is upheld and the verdict of the jury is
    affirmed.
    2. Appeal against sentence is allowed.
    3. The sentence of 20 years is quashed and a sentence
    of 14 years is imposed.
    4. Time on remand to be accounted for.
    Reason: The Court found that section 154 of the Evidence Act
    (which had been used by the appellant to argue that the
    police were obliged to carry out DNA testing on him, the
    virtual complainant and her infant child upon him telling
    the police to test him if they wanted to) was not
    persuasive, the section having more to do with
    prosecution’s right to make a request for DNA
    evidence, rather than a request from accused.
    The appellant made the following single statement to
    the police investigator when confronted about the
    offence: “I don’t know nothing about that, test me if you
    want.” The Court noted that this was the sole reference
    at to such a request. It was never repeated, neither by
    the appellant nor by distinguished counsel on his
    behalf. The Court did not consider that the Crown was
    under any obligation to order that testing be done on
    the appellant, virtual complainant and her child based
    solely on the appellant making that remark when
    confronted with the allegation.
    The Court noted there was other evidence before the
    jury. There was the evidence of the virtual complainant,
    the evidence of other witnesses, and the evidence of
    the appellant himself denying, in its entirety, the
    witness allegation that he was a bus driver after
    September 2008. Ultimately, the jury decided
    unanimously that the appellant was guilty of the
    offence.
    In the circumstances, the Court did not consider that
    the appellant was denied a fair trial on the basis that the
    police did not take up the “challenge” to carry out the
    DNA tests on his making the (abovementioned) remark.
    7
    There was no basis to vitiate the entire trial on the
    argument advanced.
    In relation to sentencing, the learned trial judge failed to
    follow the sentencing guidelines. He did not establish
    the benchmark and then subsequently consider the
    aggravating and mitigating factors and adjust the
    sentence accordingly.
    A benchmark of 8 years was accepted, and, having
    regard to the significant aggravating factors which
    outweighed the mitigating factors, the Court was of the
    view that the sentence should be increased to 14 years.
    The aggravating factors were as follows:
    a) The appellant had sexual intercourse with a
    minor without the use of a contraceptive device,
    thus exposing her to infection and pregnancy;
    b) The virtual complainant became pregnant as a
    result of the offence;
    c) The appellant abused the trust placed in him as a
    bus driver on a public route. As a bus driver, he
    was in a position of trust and confidence and
    members of the public ought to feel safe on
    boarding the bus and not be in danger of being
    lured into pathways and assaulted.
    d) The severe disparity between the appellant’s age
    and that of the virtual complainant, the appellant
    being 43 years old and the virtual complainant
    being 15 years old at the time of the offence.
    The only mitigating factor was that the appellant was a
    first time offender.
    Case Name: David Morton
    v
    The Director of Public Prosecutions
    [SKBHCRAP2011/0011]
    Date: Tuesday, 10th June 2014
    8
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, QC, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances
    Appellant: In person
    Respondent: Mr. O’Neil Simpson for the Director of Public
    Prosecutions
    Issues: Appeal against conviction and sentence – Rape –
    Virtual complainant 16 years old at time of offence –
    Sentence of 18 years imposed by learned trial judge –
    Whether excessive
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    1. The appeal against conviction, having been
    withdrawn, is dismissed.
    2. The appeal against sentence is allowed.
    3. The sentence of 18 years is quashed and a sentence
    of 15 years is imposed on the appellant for rape with
    time spent on remand being accounted for in
    calculating the time.
    Reason: The appellant, in his argument, indicated that he was
    merely asking for a reduction of his sentence, citing his
    mother’s failing health and his desire to be there to
    render support for her as his basis for that request. He
    did not cite any factors that rendered judge’s decision
    incorrect.
    The Court, however, examined the facts of the case and
    noted that it was not clear whether the learned trial
    judge used a benchmark when he imposed the 18 year
    sentence.
    The Court accepted a benchmark of 10 years. Starting
    from there and taking into account the aggravating
    factors, it held that further 5 years should be added to
    the benchmark. The aggravating factors greatly
    outweighed the mitigating factors.
    The mitigating factors were that the appellant was 22
    9
    years of age at the time of the offence, and that this was
    the first time that he was convicted of an offence of this
    nature.
    The aggravating factors were as follows:
    a) A weapon was used in the commission of the
    offence;
    b) The appellant threatened to kill the virtual
    complainant;
    c) The violent nature of the attack;
    d) The virtual complainant suffered injury during the
    attack;
    e) The victim ran from the appellant and he pursued
    her, caught her and then dragged her onto the
    school grounds and choked her;
    f) The events leading up to the offence began
    earlier in the night;
    g) There was a demand for money before and after
    the attack;
    h) The appellant having a previous conviction for
    wounding and choking of the victim in this case
    showed that he had a propensity to be violent.
    i) The virtual complainant was 16 years of age when
    the offence was committed.
    Case Name: Davril Battice Ruan
    v
    Chief of Police
    [SKBMCRAP2013/0031]
    Date: Tuesday, 10th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: In person
    Respondent: Ms. Greatess Gordon
    Issues: Appeal against sentence – Possession of controlled
    10
    drug – Possession of controlled drug with intent to
    supply
    Result / Order: [Oral Delivery]
    Hearing of the appeal is adjourned to Wednesday, 11th
    June 2014.
    Reason: To allow the appellant to meet with his counsel.
    Case Name:
    Dustin Lapsey
    v
    Chief of Police
    [SKBMCRAP2013/0034]
    Date: Tuesday, 10th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: In person
    Respondent: Mr. O’Neil Simpson
    Issues: Appeal against sentence – Whether sentence imposed
    by learned magistrate was excessive
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    The appeal is withdrawn.
    Reason: The appellant, having already served his time, made an
    application to withdraw the appeal.
    11
    Case Name: Sean Smith
    v
    The Chief of Police
    [SKBMCRAP2013/0033]
    Date: Tuesday, 10th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: No appearance
    Respondent: Ms. Greatess Gordon
    Issues: Appeal against conviction and sentence – Aggravated
    assault – Appellant charged by police with battery
    under s. 12(1) of Small Charges Act (Cap. 75, Revised
    Laws of St. Christopher Nevis and Anguilla) which
    carries maximum sentence of 2 months imprisonment
    hard labour – Court deemed assault by appellant
    sufficiently serious for it to amount to aggravated
    assault upon a female in accordance with s. 12(2)(b) of
    Small Charges Act which carries maximum sentence of
    6 months imprisonment hard labour – Whether learned
    magistrate erred in imposing a greater sentence than
    that for which appellant was charged
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    1. The Registrar is directed to serve upon the appellant
    Mr. Sean Smith a notice of hearing of his appeal
    fixed for Friday, 13th June 2014 at 9:00 a.m.
    2. The court office is to arrange for service on
    appellant.
    3. The hearing is adjourned to Friday, 13th June 2014.
    Reason: There was no evidence on file to prove that the
    appellant had been served with a notice of the day’s
    hearing.
    12
    Case Name: Lawten Forbes
    v
    Chief of Police
    [SKBMCRAP2013/0030]
    Date: Tuesday, 10th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: No appearance
    Respondent: Mr. O’Neil Simpson
    Issues: Appeal against conviction – Breaking and entering
    dwelling house – 10 year delay in prosecution of appeal
    – Whether learned magistrate had sufficient evidence
    upon which to arrive at verdict of guilty – Whether
    learned magistrate properly considered requirements of
    Turnbull direction in contemplating matter of
    identification evidence arising in case
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    1. The Registrar is directed to serve upon the appellant
    Mr. Lawten Forbes a notice of hearing of his appeal
    fixed for Friday, 13th June 2014 at 9:00 a.m.
    2. The hearing is adjourned to Friday, 13th June 2014.
    Reason: There was no evidence on file to prove that the
    appellant had been served with a notice of the day’s
    hearing.
    13
    Case Name: Timothy Abbott
    v
    The Commissioner of Police
    [SKBMCRAP2013/0001]
    Date: Tuesday, 10th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Hesketh Benjamin
    Respondent: Ms. Greatess Gordon
    Issues: Appeal against conviction and sentence – Fraudulent
    conversion – Section 51 of Magistrate’s Code of
    Procedure Act (Cap 3.17, Revised Laws of Saint
    Christopher and Nevis 2009) – Whether learned
    magistrate erred in failing to give appellant opportunity
    to elect whether to be tried by jury or to have case dealt
    with summarily, contrary to s. 51 of Act – Whether
    learned magistrate’s decision to proceed in manner
    which deprived appellant of opportunity to have
    counsel cross-examine certain prosecution witnesses
    breached his right to a fair trial – Whether decision of
    learned magistrate unreasonable or cannot be
    supported having regard to the evidence – Whether
    appellant’s conviction and sentence based on wrong
    principle or were such that a magistrate viewing
    circumstances reasonably could not properly have so
    decided – Whether sentence of 9 months imprisonment
    with hard labour imposed by learned magistrate unduly
    severe
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    The matter is adjourned to the next sitting of Court of
    Appeal in the Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis
    during the week commencing 27th October 2014.
    Reason: Counsel for the appellant requested that the matter be
    adjourned.
    14
    Case Name: Gweneth Williams
    v
    The Chief of Police
    [SKBMCRAP2013/0011]
    Date: Tuesday, 10th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: In person
    Respondent: Ms. Greatess Gordon
    Issues: Appeal against conviction and sentence – Disorderly
    conduct – Whether there was sufficient evidence for
    learned magistrate to have found appellant guilty
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    The matter is adjourned to the next sitting of Court of
    Appeal in the Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis
    commencing 27th October 2014.
    Reason: The appellant requested an adjournment.
    Case Name: Mary Christopher
    v
    The Chief of Police
    [SKBMCRAP2013/0012]
    15
    Date: Tuesday, 10th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: No appearance
    Respondent: Ms. Greatess Gordon
    Issues: Appeal against conviction and sentence – Possession
    of controlled drug – Whether decision of learned
    magistrate unreasonable or cannot be supported
    having regard to the evidence – Whether judgment
    passed was based on wrong principle or was such that
    a magistrate viewing circumstances reasonably could
    not properly have so decided
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    1. The Registrar is directed to serve upon the appellant
    Ms. Mary Christopher a notice of hearing of the
    appeal fixed for the week commencing 27th October
    2014.
    2. The hearing of this appeal is adjourned to next
    sitting of Court of Appeal in the Federation of Saint
    Christopher and Nevis commencing the 27th October
    2014.
    Reason: There was no evidence on file to prove that the
    appellant had been served with a notice of the day’s
    hearing.
    Case Name: West Indies Power (Nevis) Limited
    v
    Nevis Island Administration
    [SKBHCVAP2013/0003]
    Date: Wednesday, 11th June 2014
    16
    Coram: The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice
    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, QC, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Terence Byron
    Respondent: Ms. Dia Forrester, with her, Mr. Jomokie Phillips
    Issues: Interlocutory appeal – Case management
    Result / Order: [No order made]
    Reason: Given the state of the matter, the Court was of the view
    that there was nothing for it to do at the moment. The
    parties were told that they were free to take the steps
    that they considered were necessary.
    Case Name: Denzil Hinds
    v
    The Director of Public Prosecutions for the
    Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis
    [SKBHCRAP2012/0022]
    Date: Wednesday, 11th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice
    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, QC, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Ms. Keisha Spence
    Respondent: Mr. Travers Sinanan, Director of Public Prosecutions
    17
    Issues: Contempt proceedings – Attorney-at-law summarily
    committed to prison for 10 days for contempt of court –
    Learned trial judge found comments and gestures made
    by defence counsel during cross-examination of
    complainant at trial highly offensive and inappropriate
    – In giving appellant opportunity to show cause why he
    should not be committed, appellant was provided only
    with copy of transcript of sitting to which contempt
    proceedings related – Appellant requested transcript of
    entire trial in order to show cause – Learned judge
    refused appellant’s request – Whether learned trial
    judge erred in not allowing appellant to have copy of
    transcript of entire proceedings – Whether learned
    judge erred in depriving appellant of opportunity to be
    represented by counsel of his choosing upon his
    request – Whether learned judge erred in law and/or
    misdirected himself in finding that the words and/or
    conduct included in transcript were contemptuous –
    Whether learned judge erred in law and misdirected
    himself in failing to allow appellant adequate time
    and/or facilities upon his request to prepare his defence
    in contravention of his fundamental human right to
    secure protection of the law – Whether learned judge
    erred in imposing custodial sentence on appellant
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    The Registrar of the High Court is hereby directed to
    take all steps necessary to cause to be prepared a
    transcript of the entire proceedings in relation to the
    matter in the court below and that the said transcript be
    made available to the parties no later than Friday, 18th
    July 2014.
    Reason: Counsel for the appellant indicated that she had
    requested the transcripts but was having difficulty
    obtaining them.
    Case Name: Clive Grant
    v
    The Director of Public Prosecutions
    18
    [SKBHCRAP2011/0027]
    Date: Wednesday, 11th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice
    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, QC, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: In person
    Respondent: Mr. O’Neil Simpson for the Director of Public
    Prosecutions
    Issues: Appeal against conviction and sentence – Burglary –
    Possession of stolen goods – Identification – No direct
    evidence on identification – Doctrine of recent
    possession – Stolen items taken from appellant –
    Appellant in possession of house breaking implements
    – Whether there was sufficient evidence to identify
    appellant as perpetrator – Consecutive sentences
    imposed for 2 charges arising out of 1 incident
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. The
    conviction is upheld.
    2. Sentence is varied to the extent that the sentence of
    8 years imposed for burglary in SKBHCR2011/0045
    and the sentence of 5 years reduced to 3 years and 4
    months imposed in SKBHCR2011/0042 for
    possession of housebreaking implements are to run
    concurrently and not consecutively.
    Reason: The Court held that there was no miscarriage of justice
    in this matter, notwithstanding that the virtual
    complainant could not identify the appellant. There was
    sufficient evidence before the jury upon which it could
    have properly come to a verdict of guilty – the presence
    of circumstantial evidence as to the colour of the phone
    which had been stolen; the chips, scratches and
    description of the phone; the fact that the phone was
    found on the appellant in a bag the appellant identified
    as belonging to him; and, the evidence that the
    19
    appellant was hiding.
    The jury would have heard all the evidence – that is, the
    appellants’ version, the police’s version as well as that
    of the virtual complainant – and, as the trier of fact,
    would have determined which version it accepted.
    The trial judge properly directed the jury on the relevant
    principle of law, the doctrine of recent possession.
    This doctrine states that where a person is said to be
    found in possession of something that has been taken,
    and that thing has been identified as belonging to
    another person, and the person in possession of the
    item is found with it shortly after that item has gone
    missing, then the law allows the presumption that that
    person found with it is the taker of it, failing an
    explanation. This doctrine was applicable on the facts
    even in the absence of direct evidence of identification.
    Concerning the appellant’s sentence, having regard to
    the circumstances of the offence, what transpired
    afterwards, as well as the numerous convictions for
    similar offences, the Court held that it was proper for
    the trial judge to take these factors into account and
    decide that 8 years was an appropriate sentence for the
    robbery and 3 years, for possession of housebreaking
    implements. However, the law is clear on the legal
    principles that guide imposing consecutive sentences.
    This case did not fall within this category. Accordingly,
    the Court held that the learned trial judge erred in
    imposing consecutive sentences.
    Case Name: Glenville Isles
    v
    The Director of Public Prosecutions
    [SKBHCRAP2011/0030]
    Date: Wednesday, 11th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice
    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal
    20
    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, QC, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: In person
    Respondent: Mr. Travers Sinanan, Director of Public Prosecutions
    Issues: Appeal against conviction and sentence – Attempted
    murder – Whether conviction sound in law – Whether
    there was violation of appellant’s rights which resulted
    in miscarriage of justice – Whether sentence was too
    harsh
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    The hearing of this appeal is adjourned to the next
    sitting of the Court in the Federation of Saint Kitts and
    Nevis beginning the week of 27th October 2014.
    Reason: The appellant applied for an adjournment. There was
    no objection by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    Case Name: Joseph Herbert
    v
    The Director of Public Prosecutions
    [SKBHCRAP2011/0014]
    Date: Wednesday, 11th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice
    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, QC, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant /
    Applicant:
    In person
    Respondent: Ms. Greatess Gordon for Mr. Travers Sinanan, Director
    of Public Prosecutions
    21
    Issues: Appeal against conviction and sentence – Buggery –
    Application for adjournment
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    Hearing of this appeal, at the request of the appellant, is
    adjourned to the next sitting of the Court in the
    Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis during the week
    commencing 27th October 2014.
    Reason: The appellant indicated to the Court that his attorney
    was out of the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis. The
    appellant therefore requested an adjournment to
    contact and instruct counsel. There was no objection
    by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    Case Name: General Security Services Limited
    v
    St. Christopher and Nevis Solid Waste
    Management
    [SKBMCVAP2013/0021]
    Date: Wednesday, 11th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Ms. Miselle O’Brien-Norton holding papers for Mr.
    Hesketh Benjamin
    Respondent: Ms. Angelina Gracy Sookoo
    Issues: Contract for security services to be provided to
    respondent by appellant company – Whether terms of
    contract breached by appellant – Termination of
    22
    contract by respondent – Sums owed to appellant at
    time of termination of contract – Case dismissed by
    learned magistrate – Whether decision of learned
    magistrate unreasonable and cannot be supported
    having regard to evidence – Whether decision of
    learned magistrate based on wrong principle or was
    such that a magistrate viewing the circumstances
    reasonably could not properly have so decided
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    The matter is adjourned to the next sitting of the Court
    of Appeal in the Federation of Saint Christopher and
    Nevis commencing the week of 27th October 2014.
    Reason: Counsel for the appellant requested an adjournment of
    the matter.
    Case Name: John Cato
    v
    Jessica Ferdinand
    [SKBMCVAP2007/0003]
    Date: Wednesday, 11th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: In person
    Respondent: Ms. Robin Herbert-Thompson
    Issues: Land purchased by respondent from third party –
    Appellant acted as agent in purchase of land –
    Proceedings commenced by appellant in court below
    for monies owed to him by respondent for services
    rendered in his capacity as agent – Whether learned
    magistrate was biased – Appellant ordered to pay costs
    23
    in amount of $1,500.00 – Whether learned magistrate
    had jurisdiction to order costs in amount of $1,500.00
    when claim was only for $1,000.00 – Whether learned
    magistrate’s discretion exercised in punitive manner –
    Case management – Notice of appeal filed but no
    recognizance on file
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    The matter is adjourned to the sitting of the Court of
    Appeal in the Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis
    commencing the week of 27th October 2014, by which
    time the appellant shall comply with all directions,
    otherwise the appeal will be dismissed with costs.
    Reason: The appellant made an application for the matter to be
    adjourned to allow him to file his recognizance to
    complete the record of appeal.
    Case Name: Andre Phipps
    v
    Beulah Mills
    [SKBMCVAP2013/0012]
    Date: Wednesday, 11th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: No appearance
    Respondent: Ms. Angelina Gracy Sookoo
    Issues: Case management – Proceedings brought against
    appellant in court below for breach of lease agreement
    between appellant and respondent – Terms of
    agreement – Whether rent inclusive of water and
    electricity – Utility bills not paid by appellant –
    24
    Recovery of outstanding sums
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    The appeal listed as magisterial civil appeal 2013/0012
    is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
    Reason: There was no appearance of or on behalf of the
    appellant. Also, no notice of appeal had ever been
    presented to the Court evidencing the filing of an
    appeal (although the court record showed that a notice
    of appeal had been filed by an attorney on behalf of the
    appellant).
    Case Name: Edwin Glasford
    v
    Venetta Berridge
    [SKBMCVAP2013/0032]
    Date: Wednesday, 11th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Terence V. Byron
    Respondent: Ms. Deidre Williams
    Issues: Road traffic accident – Whether decision unreasonable
    or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence –
    Whether learned magistrate erred in failing to apply
    principle of law in case of Eudelle Adams v Patrick
    Ribeiro SKBHCV1991/0217 (dated 23rd September 1994,
    unreported)
    Result / Order
    & Reason:
    [Oral delivery]
    Upon application by the appellant to discontinue the
    25
    appeal filed on 22nd January 2008 and with no
    objections by the respondent, this appeal is dismissed
    with no order as to costs.
    Case Name: Keithroy Isaac
    v
    St. Clair Kelly
    [SKBMCVAP2013/0025]
    Date: Wednesday, 11th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: In person
    Respondent: No appearance
    Issues: Contract – Agreement for sale of passenger bus to
    respondent – Term of contract that registration number
    of bus would be leased to respondent for period of 2
    years – Payments for lease of registration number made
    by respondent for only 2 months – Registration number
    retained by respondent – Whether written agreement
    between appellant and respondent legally enforceable –
    Whether licence to use registration number capable of
    being assigned or transferred
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    Hearing of this appeal is adjourned to the next sitting of
    the Court of Appeal in the Federation of Saint
    Christopher and Nevis commencing the week of 27th
    October 2014.
    Reason: The respondent could not be located for the notice of
    hearing to be served on him.
    26
    Case Name: Lefco Equipment Rental & Construction Co. Ltd
    v
    Robert (Bob) Getz
    [SKBMCVAP2012/0009]
    Date: Wednesday, 11th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Ms. Farida Hobson
    Respondent: No appearance
    Issues: Contract – Supply of goods and services by appellant
    to respondent – Sums owed to appellant under
    agreement – Whether appellant’s claim statute barred
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    1. Hearing of this appeal is adjourned to the next
    sitting of the Court of Appeal in the Federation of
    Saint Christopher and Nevis commencing the week
    of 27th October 2014.
    2. The Registrar of the High Court shall cause a notice
    of hearing to be served on the respondent.
    Reason: Counsel for the appellant requested an adjournment to
    allow her to file a skeleton argument. There was no
    evidence that the respondent had been served with a
    notice of the day’s hearing.
    Case Name: Wentworth Richardson
    27
    v
    Jason Hamilton
    [SKBMCVAP2013/0022]
    Date: Wednesday, 11th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: In person
    Respondent: Ms. Keisha Spence
    Issues: Enforcement of judgment debt – Legal fees owed to
    respondent by appellant – Whether barrister can sue for
    legal fees owed to him by client – Whether learned
    magistrate erred in not giving sufficient weight to
    evidence presented to her by appellant – Whether
    learned magistrate erred in not allowing appellant to
    present his case in absence of solicitor who was on
    record as acting for him – Application for adjournment
    Result / Order
    & Reason:
    [Oral delivery]
    1. Hearing of this appeal is adjourned to the next
    sitting of the Court of Appeal in the Federation of
    Saint Christopher and Nevis commencing the week
    of 27th October 2014 to allow the appellant a final
    opportunity to seek legal representation.
    2. If, at the next sitting, the appellant does not have
    legal representation, he would have to present his
    own case or withdraw the appeal.
    3. Costs for the day in the sum of $250.00 to be paid
    before 27th October 2014.
    STATUS HEARING
    28
    Case Name: Manuel Antonio de los Santos Marte
    v
    Miriam Lorenzo Altagracia
    [SKBMCVAP2013/0003]
    Date: Wednesday, 11th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Terence V. Byron
    Respondent: Mr. John Cato
    Issues: Status of matter – Whether learned magistrate erred in
    ordering appellant to repay money which she found had
    been loaned to him by respondent – Whether decision
    unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to
    evidence – English not appellant’s native language –
    Whether merits of appellant’s defence at trial
    substantially affected by level of competence of
    interpreter used in court
    Result / Order
    & Reason:
    [Oral delivery]
    Upon application by the appellant to discontinue appeal
    filed on 11th April 2013 and with no objections by the
    respondent, this appeal is dismissed with no order as
    to costs.
    APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS
    Case Name: Davril Battice Ruan
    v
    Chief of Police
    29
    [SKBMCRAP2013/0031]
    Date: Wednesday, 11th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant /
    Applicant:
    Mr. John Cato
    Respondent: Ms. Greatess Gordon
    Issues: Appeal against sentence – Possession of controlled
    drug – Possession of controlled drug with intent to
    supply – Application (by appellant) for adjournment of
    matter
    Result / Order
    & Reason:
    [Oral delivery]
    Hearing of this appeal is adjourned to the next sitting of
    the Court of Appeal in the Federation of Saint
    Christopher and Nevis commencing the week of 27th
    October 2014 to enable the appellant to seek legal
    representation.
    Case Name: Cecil Rock
    v
    National Bank Trust Company (St. Kitts-Nevis-
    Anguilla) Limited
    The lawfully appointed attorney for Joseph
    Edwards and Ione Edwards
    [SKBMCVAP2013/0024]
    Date: Wednesday, 11th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    30
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. John Cato
    Respondent: Ms. Miselle O’Brien-Norton
    Issues: Recovery of cost of cleaning and repair services carried
    out on premises previously rented by appellant –
    Whether learned magistrate displayed bias in favour of
    respondent during hearing – Whether decision was
    against the weight of the evidence
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    1. The appeal is allowed to the extent that the total sum
    awarded by the learned magistrate is varied to the
    extent that it is reduced by the sum of $842.24.
    2. There is no order as to costs.
    Reason: Grounds of appeal 1 and 2, which were both related to
    bias, were abandoned by the appellant.
    With regard to grounds 3 and 4, that the learned
    magistrate erred in not allowing the appellant to present
    his case when his solicitor, who was on record as
    acting for him, did not show up for the hearing
    (because he was involved in another court matter), the
    Court stated that there was no record to support the
    appellant’s submissions and also, there was no merit in
    the submissions.
    In relation to ground of appeal 5, that the decision of
    the learned magistrate was against the weight of the
    evidence, the Court held that this was not the case; the
    decision of the learned magistrate was not against the
    weight of the evidence.
    Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Cato, argued that
    there was not sufficient evidence on which the
    magistrate could have found that the respondent was
    entitled to the sum claimed for cleaning of the premises
    and for repairs to be done as there was no evidence as
    to the state of repair of the property, both when the
    appellant entered it in 1999 and when he left it in 2008.
    31
    The Court, having examined the record, was satisfied
    that, based on the evidence, in particular, that of Mrs.
    Edwards and Ms. Maynard (Administrative Assistant at
    National Bank Trust), the learned magistrate could have
    come to the decision which was arrived at, that the
    appellant was liable for the cost of cleaning the
    premises and the repairs to be done, and the learned
    magistrate was within her right to award the claimants
    the sum of $5,854.30, being the cost of the repairs and
    cleaning; there was sufficient documentary evidence in
    support of the costs incurred by the claimant.
    On the issue of costs, the Court found that it was within
    the magistrate’s discretion to award costs in the matter,
    having found that the claimants were successful in their
    claim, and there was no basis on which the Court could
    interfere with the exercise of the discretion of the
    learned magistrate.
    In relation to the sum of $842.24 which was awarded by
    the learned magistrate to the claimant, this sum being
    the cost of claimant’s ticket to travel to St. Kitts for the
    hearing of the matter, Mr. Cato submitted that there was
    no evidence on the record to support this claim and nor
    was a claim made for this sum. Having examined the
    record, the Court agreed with the submissions of
    counsel for the appellant that indeed there was no
    evidence on the record which showed that the claimant
    had made a claim for the sum of $842.24 and nor was
    there any evidence on the record which showed that
    this sum was incurred for the purpose of the hearing of
    the claim.
    Case Name: The Attorney General of St Christopher and
    Nevis
    v
    [1] Hon. Sam Condor
    [2] Hon. Shawn K. Richards
    [SKBHCVAP2013/0005]
    32
    The Rt. Hon. Dr. Denzil L. Douglas – Prime
    Minister
    v
    [1] Hon. Sam Condor
    [2] Hon. Shawn K. Richards
    [SKBHCVAP2013/0006]
    Date: Thursday, 12th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellants: Ms. Angelina Gracy Sookoo (for the appellant in
    SKBHCVAP2013/0005)
    Ms. Simone Bullen-Thompson (for the appellant in
    SKBHCVAP2013/0006)
    Respondents: Ms. Talibah Byron (instructed by Mr. DeLara MacClure
    Taylor)
    Issues: Senators (Increase of Number) Act, 2013 – Whether
    Attorney General proper party to claim – Whether
    court’s jurisdictions under ss. 36 and 96 of the Saint
    Christopher and Nevis Constitution Order 1983 could
    be merged and properly heard and determined together
    – Whether learned judge erred in holding that natural
    and ordinary meaning of proviso to s. 26(2) of
    Constitution was that the Senate does not increase in
    number from three to four until person who is already
    senator also holds office of Attorney General – Whether
    learned judge erred in holding that it was unlawful to
    appoint Mr. Jason Hamilton as senator and Attorney
    General because there were already three senators
    appointed – If appointment of Jason Hamilton as fourth
    senator and Attorney General unlawful, does fact that
    he participated in passing of the Senators (Increase of
    Number) Act, 2013 render the Act void ab initio –
    Whether appointment of fourth senator by Governor
    General on advice of Prime Minister justiciable – Effect
    of s. 44(2) of Constitution – Whether s. 44(2) operates
    33
    as absolute and unequivocal constitutional ouster of
    jurisdiction of High Court to invalidate passing of 2013
    Act – Application to consolidate appeals
    SKBHCVAP2013/0005 and SKBHCVAP2013/0006
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    Hearing of the appeal is adjourned to the next sitting of
    the Court of Appeal in the Federation of Saint
    Christopher and Nevis during the week of 27th – 31st
    October 2014.
    Reason: The appellant requested that the matter be adjourned
    due to the illness of counsel.
    Case Name: [1] Carmel Bernadette Agnes McGill
    [2] Laszlo Stephen Siegmund
    v
    [1] The Attorney General of St. Christopher and
    Nevis
    [2] KHT Land Holdings Limited
    [SKBHCVAP2013/0022]
    Date: Thursday, 12th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellants: Mr. E. Anthony Ross, QC, with him, Ms. Dollrita Jack-
    Cato
    Respondents: Ms. Violet Williams holding papers for Ms. W. Alethea
    Gumbs (for the 1st respondent)
    Mr. Emile Ferdinand, QC, with him, Mr. Damian Kelsick
    and Ms. Keisha Spence (for the 2nd respondent)
    34
    Issues: Compensation for acquisition of land by the State –
    Indefeasibility of certificate of title – Whether learned
    judge erred in striking out appellants’ claim on grounds
    that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action or was
    statute barred by the Public Authorities Protection Act
    (Cap. 5.13, Revised Laws of Saint Christopher and
    Nevis 2009) – Appeal against findings of fact of learned
    judge – Whether facts raised on pleadings of
    appellants/claimants were sufficient to show serious
    case to be tried
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    1. Hearing of the appeal is adjourned to the next sitting
    of the Court of Appeal in the Federation of Saint
    Christopher and Nevis during the week of 27th – 31st
    October 2014.
    2. Costs of travelling and accommodation for the
    period 11th – 13th June 2014 are awarded to Mr.
    Anthony Ross, QC, counsel for the appellant.
    Reason: The first respondent requested an adjournment
    because Ms. Gumbs (counsel for the first respondent)
    was ill.
    Case Name: Development Bank of St. Kitts-Nevis
    v
    [1] Osbert Chapman
    [2] Lionel R. Williams
    [3] Prudence France
    [SKBHCVAP2013/0015]
    Date: Thursday, 12th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    35
    Appellant: Mr. Glenford Hamilton, with him, Ms. Deidre Williams
    Respondents: Mr. Arudranauth Gossai (for the 3rd respondent, who
    was also present)
    Issues: Appeal against order made by learned trial judge in
    court below on application to amend claim form and for
    extension of time to file witness statements – Court
    struck out statement of case of its own initiative –
    Whether learned trial judge erred in failing to grant
    application to extend time to file witness statements –
    Whether learned trial judge erred in ruling that appellant
    in the had not satisfied the criteria under rule 26.1(2)(k)
    of the Civil Procedure Rules 2000 in relation to
    application for extension of time to file witness
    statements
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    1. The appeal is allowed.
    2. The order of learned trial judge is set aside.
    3. Leave is granted to the appellant to file witness
    statements within 14 days and the matter is to
    proceed in accordance with CPR 2000.
    4. Costs to appellant in the sum of $2,000.00 as agreed.
    Reason: Having heard submissions from counsel on both sides,
    the Court noted that in the court below, the appellant
    had indicated in its written submissions that it no
    longer wished to pursue the application in relation to
    the amendment of the claim form. The appellant having
    done so, the learned trial judge ought not to have
    proceeded to extensively address the issue and
    virtually determine the case on the basis of the
    withdrawn application.
    In relation to the application for an extension of time to
    file the witness statements, the Court held that the
    relevant criteria is set out in the line of cases starting
    with the decision of this Court in the case of John Cecil
    Rose v Anne Marie Rose SLHCVAP2003/0019 (delivered
    22nd September 2003, unreported) where Sir Dennis
    Byron CJ stated (at paragraph 2 of the judgment):
    36
    “Granting the extension of time is a discretionary
    power of the Court, which will be exercised in
    favour of the applicant for good and substantial
    reasons. The matters which the Court will
    consider in the exercise of its discretion are: (1)
    the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the
    delay (3) the chances of the [matter] succeeding
    if the extension is granted; and (4) the degree of
    prejudice to the Respondent if the Application is
    granted.”
    The Court was satisfied that the appellant had met the
    requirements in the present case.
    In relation to the issue of the dismissal of the claim, the
    Court noted that there was no application to strike out
    the claim. Also there was no indication that the learned
    trial judge had proposed to make an order dismissing
    the matter of his own initiative, but nevertheless, he still
    went on to do so. If the judge was inclined to dismiss
    the matter he ought to have followed the procedure set
    out in rule 26.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2000 and
    given the appellant an opportunity to be heard on that
    point.
    Case Name: Lawten Forbes
    v
    Chief of Police
    [SKBMCRAP2013/0030]
    Date: Friday, 13th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Dr. Henry Browne, QC, with him, Ms. C. Marissa
    Hobson-Newman
    Respondent: Mr. O’Neil Simpson, with him, Ms. Greatess Gordon for
    the Director of Public Prosecutions
    37
    Issues: Appeal against conviction – Breaking and entering
    dwelling house – 10 year delay in prosecution of appeal
    – Whether learned magistrate had sufficient evidence
    upon which to arrive at verdict of guilty – Whether
    learned magistrate properly considered requirements of
    Turnbull direction in contemplating matter of
    identification evidence arising in case
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    1. The appellant’s conviction is upheld.
    2. The sentence imposed by the learned magistrate is
    set aside and substituted by caution, reprimand and
    discharge.
    Reason: The Court found that there was no basis to overturn the
    conviction. However, with regard to the sentence
    imposed by the learned magistrate, the Court held that
    it would be inhumane, inappropriate and fundamentally
    unfair, in terms of the right to a fair trial, not to set it
    aside in the circumstances; there was a very long delay
    in getting the appeal heard, through no fault of the
    appellant’s.
    Case Name: Sean Smith
    v
    The Chief of Police
    [SKBMCRAP2013/0033]
    Date: Friday, 13th June 2014
    Coram: The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal
    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Dr. Henry Browne, QC
    Respondent: Ms. Greatess Gordon, with her, Mr. O’Neil Simpson, for
    38
    the Director of Public Prosecutions
    Issues: Appeal against conviction and sentence – Aggravated
    assault – Appellant charged by police with battery
    under s. 12(1) of Small Charges Act (Cap. 75, Revised
    Laws of St. Christopher Nevis and Anguilla) which
    carries maximum sentence of 2 months imprisonment
    hard labour – Court deemed assault by appellant
    sufficiently serious for it to amount to aggravated
    assault upon a female in accordance with s. 12(2)(b) of
    Small Charges Act which carries maximum sentence of
    6 months imprisonment hard labour – Whether learned
    magistrate erred in imposing a greater sentence than
    that for which appellant was charged
    Result / Order: [Oral delivery]
    Hearing of this appeal is adjourned to the next sitting of
    the Court of Appeal in the Federation during the week
    of 27th – 31st October 2014.
    Reason: Counsel for the appellant requested an adjournment.

    /10th-13th-june-2014/
     Prev
    Laureen James v Registration Officer
    Next 
    Hadeed v CLICO International General Insurance LTD.
    Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court

    2nd Floor Heraldine Rock Building
    Waterfront
    P.O. Box 1093
    Castries
    Saint Lucia
    T: +1 758 457 3600
    E: offices@eccourts.org

    • About Us
      • Court Overview
      • Career Opportunities
      • Directory
      • Privacy Policy
    • Judgments
      • Court Of Appeal
      • High Court
    • Sittings
      • Chamber Hearing
      • Court of Appeal
      • High Court
    • News & Updates
      • Appointments
      • Press Releases
    • Civil Procedure Rules
      • Court Forms
      • Practice Directions
    © 2023 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. All Rights Reserved

    Submit your email address and name to subscribe for email notifcations.

    [email-subscribers-advanced-form id="1"]
    Bookmark
    Remove Item
    Sign in to continue
    or

    Bookmarked Items
    •  Home
    • Judgments
    • Sittings
    •  News
    •  more