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 Text
    Home » Digests of Decisions » Court of Appeal Sittings – 10th – 14th October 2016

    COURT OF APPEAL SITTING

    SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS

    10th – 14th October 2016

    JUDGMENTS

    Case Name:

    Delta Petroleum (Nevis) Limited

    v


    [1] OOJJ’s Ltd (Doing business as OOJJ’s Service
    Station)

    [2] Othneil Hyliger

    [SKBHCVAP2013/0016]

    Date:

    Monday, 10th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Humphrey Stollmeyer, Justice of Appeal
    [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:


    Mr. Adrian Scantlebury holding papers for Mr. John
    Carrington, QC

    Respondents:


    Ms. Sherry-Ann Liburd-Charles (for 2nd
    respondent)


    2nd respondent, Mr. Othneil Hyliger also
    present

    Issues:


    Civil appeal – Landlord and tenant – Covenant not to
    derogate from grant – Whether there was derogation from
    grant by respondent – Whether respondent’s omission
    amounts to breach of covenant – Whether appellant
    entitled to terminate lease agreement on basis of
    breach of fundamental terms – Costs

    Result & Reason:


    Held: allowing the appeal in part and ordering costs in
    the appeal be assessed at 1/6 of the prescribed costs
    in the court below, that:

    1.

    The covenant not to derogate from grant is prospective
    in nature. While it embraces any act or omission on the
    part of the landlord which has the effect of rendering
    the premises substantially less fit for the purpose, it
    does not embrace acts or omissions occurring before the
    lease agreement was entered into. In this case, the
    second respondent wired the demised premises before and
    not after the lease was entered into. Consequently,
    there was no derogation from grant with respect to the
    pre-lease wiring and/or any continuing consequences
    this might have had for the tenant.



    Southwark London Borough Council v Mills and
    others; Baxter v Camden London Borough of Council


    [1999] 4 All ER 449 applied;
    Chartered Trust plc v Davies
    [1997] 2 EGLR 83 applied;


    William Old International Limited v Arya and
    another



    [2009] EWHC 599 (Ch) at para. 36 applied.

    2.

    In order to have validly terminated the lease agreement
    on the basis of there being a breach of a fundamental
    term of the agreement, there must have been, at the
    time of the purported termination, cogent evidence that
    conclusively established that (i) the adequate supply
    of electricity was in fact a fundamental term; and (ii)
    the second respondent failed in his duty to provide an
    adequate supply of electricity. In this case, the
    fundamental term relates to the supply of electricity
    to the premises, not its adequacy. Since the agreement
    was not discharged on the ground of a breach of the
    fundamental term to supply electricity or more
    generally a breach of the covenant not to derogate from
    grant, the appellant wrongfully purported to terminate
    the lease agreement in September 2008. Further, there
    was no conclusive evidence that unequivocally
    established that the second respondent caused the
    fluctuations or that he was under an obligation to
    rectify the wiring of the demised premises so as to
    make it fit for its intended purpose. The learned judge
    was therefore right in holding that the appellant had
    no legal or fatual basis for the early termination of
    the lease agreement.

    3.

    In relation to the entitlement to set off, since the
    appellant wrongfully purported to terminate the lease
    agreement, its obligation to pay rent continued until
    December 2009. Accordingly, the learned judge was
    entitled to set off the sum of $208,400.00 representing
    unpaid rent against the principal sum of $486,833.84
    owed to the appellant.

    4.

    On the question of costs, rule 65.5(1)(2) of the Civil
    Procedure Rules 2000 provides in part that the “value”
    of the claim, whether or not the claim is one for a
    specified or unspecified sum, coupled with a claim for
    other remedies is to be decided in the case of the
    claimant or defendant – (a) by the amount agreed or
    ordered to be paid. In the case at bar, no money was
    “ordered to be paid” to the second respondent. The
    $208,400.00 was an amount that was set off against the
    debt owed to the appellant. The learned judge therefore
    had no legal basis for awarding prescribed costs to the
    second respondent on the counterclaim, which in effect
    was a set off.


    Rule 65.5 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2000
    applied; Rule 64.6 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
    2000 considered.

    APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS

    Case Name:

    Reginald Anthony Hull

    v


    [1] The Attorney General of St. Christopher and Nevis

    [2] The Social Security Board

    [SKBHCVAP2012/0029]

    Date:

    Monday, 10th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Humphrey Stollmeyer, Justice of Appeal
    [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:


    Mr. Garth Wilkin, with him, Mr. Damian Kelsick

    (The appellant is now deceased)

    Respondents:


    Ms. Nisharma Rattan-Mack (for the 1st
    respondent)


    Mr. Leon Charles (for the 2nd respondent)

    Issues:


    Application to vary order of single judge – Whether or
    not a bailiff can be held personally responsible and
    the Crown vicariously liable for unlawful imprisonment
    in pursuit of the execution of an order of the
    magistrate to imprison a debtor – Jurisdiction of full
    Court to review decision of single judge – Whether
    order made by single judge in a procedural /
    interlocutory appeal reviewable by Full Court –
    Applicability of rule 62.16(A) and rule 62.10 of the
    Civil Procedure Rules 2000 (as amended by the 2011 CPR
    2000 amendments) to an interlocutory appeal –
    Applicability of s. 10.3 of the Windward Islands and
    Leeward Islands (Courts) Order in Council, 1959 –
    Applicability of s. 5(6) of the Saint Christopher and
    Nevis Constitution Order 1983 – Whether warrant of
    committal invalid and therefore the unrest unlawful –
    Applicability of s. 4(5) of the Crown Proceedings Act,
    Cap. 5.06, Revised Laws of Saint Christopher and Nevis
    2009

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    N/A

    Result / Order:


    Notice of discontinuance to be filed by Tuesday, 11 th October 2016.

    Reason:


    The Court was informed that a notice of discontinuance
    was to be filed in the matter and that settlement
    negotiations are being concluded.

    Case Name:

    Anne Hendricks Bass

    v

    [1] Director of Physical Planning

    [2] Development Advisory Committee

    [SKBHCVAP2016/0004]

    Date:

    Monday, 10th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Humphrey Stollmeyer, Justice of Appeal
    [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    Mr. Damian Kelsick

    Respondents:

    Ms. Jean M. Dyer (for both respondents)

    Issues:


    Judicial review – Applicability of the Public
    Authorities Protection Act (Cap. 5.13, Revised Laws of
    Saint Christopher and Nevis 2009) (“PAPA”) to judicial
    review proceedings – Time limitation contained in s.
    2(1)(a) of PAPA – Application to withdraw application
    for stay of interim order by single judge

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    N/A

    Result / Order:

    The application is set down to Thursday.

    Reason:


    The application might be mute since the substantive
    matter will be heard later today.

    Case Name:

    Anne Hendricks Bass

    v

    [1] Director of Physical Planning

    [2] Development Advisory Committee

    [SKBHCVAP2016/0004]

    Date:

    Monday, 10th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Humphrey Stollmeyer, Justice of Appeal
    [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    Mr. Damian Kelsick

    Respondents:

    Ms. Jean M. Dyer (for both respondents)

    Issues:


    Judicial review – Applicability of the Public
    Authorities Protection Act (Cap. 5.13, Revised Laws of
    Saint Christopher and Nevis 2009) (“PAPA”) to judicial
    review proceedings – Time limitation contained in s.
    2(1)(a) of PAPA

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:


    Oral Judgment with Written Reasons to Follow

    Result / Order:


    The appeal against the preliminary objection is
    allowed.

    Reason:


    Judicial Review Proceedings are not caught by the
    Public Authorities Protection Act. Written reasons will
    be provided at a later date.

    STATUS HEARING

    Case Name:

    Wendell Welcome

    v

    The Director of Public Prosecutions

    [SKBHCRAP2014/0003]

    Date:

    Monday, 10th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal

    Appearances:

    Appellant:


    Ms. Marsha Henderson (the appellant was also present)

    Respondent:


    Mr. Valston Graham, Director of Public Prosecutions,
    with him, Mr. Teshaun Vasquez, Crown Counsel

    Issues:


    Status of matter – Appeal against conviction and
    sentence – Unlawful carnal knowledge

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Directions

    Result / Order:

    1.

    Leave is granted to the appellant to file and serve
    additional grounds of appeal within 21 days of this
    order;

    2.

    Leave is granted to appellant to serve skeleton
    arguments on or before 28th December 2016;

    3.

    The respondents shall file skeleton submissions in
    reply on or before 27th January 2017;

    4.

    The appellant is granted leave, if necessary, to file
    and serve submissions in answer on or before 14 th February 2017;

    5.

    The hearing of the appeal is adjourned and traversed to
    the next sitting of the court in the Federation of
    Saint Christopher and Nevis during the week commencing
    13th March 2017.

    Case Name:

    Kennedy David Ramsey

    v

    Aurelie Ramsey

    [SKBHCVAP2011/0024]

    Date:

    Monday, 10th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    Mr. Nassibou Butler

    Respondent:

    Ms. Miselle O’Brien

    Issues:


    Status of matter – Whether decision of the learned
    judge unreasonable and cannot be supported having
    regard to evidence – Whether learned judge erred in
    holding that there was no good reason for setting aside
    judgment made in appellant’s absence – Rule 39.5(3)(a)
    of the Civil Procedure Rules 2000 – Whether parties
    intend to prosecute appeal

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    N/A

    Result / Order & Reason:


    Matter adjourned to the next sitting of the Court of
    Appeal in the Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis
    during the week commencing 13th March 2017
    to facilitate settlement of the matter.

    Case Name:

    Ramsbury Properties Limited

    v

    Ocean View Construction Limited

    [SKBHCVAP2011/0020]

    Date:

    Monday, 10th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    Ms. M. Angela Cozier

    Respondent:

    No appearance

    Issues:


    Status of matter – Whether written lease agreement
    between appellant (as lessor) and respondent (as
    lessee) valid – Whether learned trial judge failed to
    take into account material considerations when he held
    that: i) the fixed term lease was not vetted by the
    solicitor for the respondent; ii) the premises were hot
    and poorly ventilated iii) the appellant had agreed to
    provide eating facilities for the respondent’s workers
    – Whether learned trial judge erred when he found that
    appellant had repudiated contract between the parties
    by reneging on agreement to provide eating and laundry
    facilities as the property was an industrial site –
    Whether learned trial judge erred when he found that
    refitting of the building had to be done at appellant’s
    expense – Whether learned trial judge erred when he
    found that appellant had disturbed respondent’s quiet
    enjoyment of the property – Application for stay of
    order of learned trial judge contained in judgment
    dated 3rd October 2011 pending the final
    hearing of matter

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Directions

    Result / Order:

    1.

    The Registrar of High Court is directed to ensure the
    preparation of the transcripts in the matter;

    2.

    The matter is adjourned to the next sitting of the
    Court of Appeal in the Federation of Saint Christopher
    and Nevis for further status hearing during the week
    commencing 13th March 2017.

    Reason:

    The transcript was not ready.

    APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS

    Case Name:

    Mark Brantley

    v

    Dwight C. Cozier

    [SKBHCVAP2014/0027]

    Date:

    Monday, 10th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal

    Appearances:

    Appellant / Respondent:


    Ms. Dia Forrester, with her, Mr. Gyan Robinson

    Respondent / Applicant:


    Dr. David Dorsett, with him, Ms. M. Angela Cozier

    Issues:


    Application (by respondent) for leave to appeal to Her
    Majesty in Council – Application to correct judgment

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Oral Judgment or Decision

    Result / Order:

    Correction of Judgment

    1.

    The application for correction of judgment to correct
    clerical errors on paragraphs 22, 67, and 79 is
    granted. In these paragraphs the word “hotel” is to be
    deleted and the word “building” is to be substituted;

    2.

    Costs to the applicant in the sum of $1,000.00.


    Leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council

    1.

    Application for leave to appeal to Her Majesty in
    Council is dismissed ( Martinus Francois v The Attorney General
    (SLUHCVAP2003/0037 (delivered 7th June 2004,
    unreported)) followed).

    2.

    Costs to the respondent on the application in the sum
    of $2,000.00.

    Case Name:

    Bridge Funding Inc

    v


    [1] Carino Hamilton Development Company Ltd.

    [2] Jorn Eivik

    [SKBHCVAP2016/0012]

    Date:

    Monday, 10th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal

    Appearances:

    Applicant:

    Ms. Dia Forrester

    Respondents:

    No appearance

    Issues:


    Application for leave to appeal and stay of decision of
    learned judge pending determination of appeal – Default
    judgment – Whether learned judge erred in exercise of
    her discretion by setting aside default judgment
    granted to applicant – Whether applicant has realistic
    prospect of succeeding on appeal

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Directions

    Result / Order:

    1.

    Leave is granted to the applicant to serve the
    respondent personally with the application together
    with affidavits in support of the application within 7
    days of this order.

    2.

    The applicant shall provide proof of service within 10
    days of this order.

    3.

    The application is adjourned to the next chamber
    hearing scheduled for 1st November 2016 for
    further consideration.

    Reason:


    The application was served on the firm of Merchant and
    Associates instead of on the respondents personally.

    Case Name:

    Resenda Browne

    v

    [1] Nigel Romney

    [2] Lionel Patrick

    [SKBHCVAP2011/0026]

    Date:

    Monday, 10th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal

    Appearances:

    Appellant:


    Ms. Angelina Gracy Sookoo, with her, Ms. Rénal
    Edwards (the appellant was also present)

    Respondents:

    Mr. Adrian Scantlebury

    Issues:


    Whether learned judge erred in finding that in absence
    of proof of damages respondents not liable in
    negligence – Whether learned trial judge erred in law
    by referring to medical reports which were not admitted
    into evidence – (By way of counter appeal) Whether
    learned trial judge erred in law and in fact in finding
    that the 1st respondent had breached duty of
    care owed to appellant

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Oral Judgment or Decision

    Result / Order:

    1.

    The appeal is allowed and the decision of trial judge
    is set aside and matter is remitted to the High Court
    for assessment of damages to be done by the master;

    2.
    Costs in the sum of $2,000.00;

    3.

    The counter appeal is struck out since the respondents
    have indicated that they will no longer pursue it.

    Reason:


    The learned trial judge erred in not concluding that
    the 1st respondent was negligent and
    therefore liable for the loss that the appellant
    suffered. The clear findings of fact by the learned
    trial judge at paragraphs 71 – 76 of the judgment ought
    to have led him to conclude that the 1st
    respondent was negligent. Accordingly, the learned
    judge clearly fell into error at paragraph 77 of the
    judgment when he conflated the matters of negligence
    with matters relating to quantum of damages ( Margaret Blackburn v James A. L. Bristol
    GDAHCVAP2012/0019 (delivered 12th October
    2015, unreported) followed).

    Case Name:

    Eartis Harris

    v

    The Director of Public Prosecutions

    [SKBHCVAP2013/0010]

    Date:

    Tuesday, 11th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    Ms. Natasha Grey

    Respondent:

    Mr. Esan Granderson, Crown Counsel

    Issues:


    Appeal against conviction and sentence – Indecent
    assault – Application for leave to amend grounds of
    appeal to remove ground (a) relating to whether the
    learned trial judge’s directions to jury on
    corroboration evidence were inadequate – Whether
    learned trial judge allowed evidence in trial which was
    prejudicial to appellant – Whether learned trial judge
    failed to give good character direction – Whether fact
    that appellant’s counsel received instructions late
    affected appellant’s right to fair trial – Whether
    sentence imposed on appellant unduly harsh and severe

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Oral Judgment or Decision

    Result/Order:

    1.

    Leave is granted to amend the grounds of appeal
    referred to as (a) “whether the trial judge gave
    inadequate directions to the jury on corroboration
    evidence.”

    2.

    The Court will deliver judgment later in the week and
    the Registrar will notify counsel of the date. Bail
    will continue until the Court renders its decision.

    Case Name:

    Sandy Nisbett

    v

    The Director of Public Prosecutions

    [SKBHCRAP2012/0014]

    Date:

    Tuesday, 11th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Humphrey Stollmeyer, Justice of Appeal
    [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    In person

    Respondent:

    Mr. Teshaun Vasquez, Crown Counsel

    Issues:


    Appeal against sentence – Manslaughter – Application
    for adjournment of appeal

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Directions

    Result / Order:

    1.

    The appellant shall be legally aided in the conduct of
    his appeal, such lawyer to be selected by the Registrar
    from the roster of lawyers who may render the necessary
    legal aid to the appellant.

    2.

    The hearing of the appeal is hereby adjourned to the
    next sitting of the court in the Federation of St.
    Kitts and Nevis during the week commencing the 13 th March 2017. During the period of the
    adjournment the Crown shall take all reasonable
    measures to obtain the services and reports listed at
    items 29-32 of the record of the appeal, that is:

    (a)

    Sandy Nisbett will therefore benefit from being
    evaluated by a forensic psychiatrist and risk
    assessment being done.

    (b)

    Sandy Nisbett would benefit from a full Clinical
    Neuropsychological Evaluation inclusive of Personality
    testing and Intelligence testing. This should be done
    by a PhD Clinical Psychologist and the results made
    available to the Forensic Psychiatrist.

    (c)

    The Forensic Psychiatrist should also receive updated
    reports from the social worker and psychologist, school
    and other academic reports and records, and medical
    reports, and other police reports and records should
    also be made available.

    (d)

    Also available for interview should be corroborative
    sources of information such as close family members –
    parents and siblings – friends, employers, and
    community members.

    Reason:


    There were serious issues in relation to the Social
    Inquiry Report and the decision of the Court. Counsel
    needed more time in order to respond.

    Case Name:

    [1] Exzavier Elliott

    [2] Junior Stephens

    v

    The Director of Public Prosecutions

    [SKBHCRAP2012/0015]

    [SKBHCRAP2012/0017A]

    Date:

    Tuesday, 11th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellants:

    Both in person

    Respondent:


    Mr. Valston Graham, Director of Public Prosecutions

    Issues:



    Appeal involving Exzavier Elliot –
    SKBHCRAP2012/0015


    Appeal against conviction and sentence – Robbery –
    Assault – Whether CCTV evidence was wrongfully admitted
    into evidence – Whether fact that appellant was
    interrupted during trial prevented him from having fair
    trial – Whether learned trial judge erred in allowing
    confession statement into evidence – Whether sentence
    imposed by learned trial judge was too harsh



    Appeal involving Junior Stephens –
    SKBHCRAP2012/0017A


    Appeal against conviction and sentence – Robbery –
    Assault – Whether fact that appellant was interrupted
    during trial prevented him from having fair trial –
    Whether identification evidence was poor and therefore
    unsafe

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    N/A

    Result / Order:


    The Court will consider the matters raised by the
    appellants and give a decision later in the week, if
    not give an indication one way or the other.

    Case Name:

    First Fidelity Deposit Corporation

    v

    [1] Andrew Michael Austin Titley

    [2] Judith Ann Brunton Titley

    [3] Caribbean Trust Company

    [SKBHCVAP2015/0031]

    Date:

    Tuesday, 11th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    Mr. Tim Prudhoe

    Respondents:

    No appearance

    Issues:


    Whether learned judge erred in law and misdirected
    herself in granting 2nd respondent stay of
    execution of default judgment and further, in setting
    aside said default judgment – Whether application to
    set aside default judgment properly before court –
    Counsel for appellant not called to Bar in Federation
    of St. Kitts and Nevis – Whether he can be properly
    heard by Court of Appeal in the circumstances

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    N/A

    Result / Order & Reason:


    The Court cannot hear the appellant as he is not called
    to the Bar in this jurisdiction.

    Case Name:

    Julian Clarence Charles

    v

    The Director of Public Prosecutions

    [SKBHCRAP2013/0015]

    Date:

    Tuesday, 11th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Humphrey Stollmeyer, Justice of Appeal
    [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    In person

    Respondent:

    Mr. Teshaun Vasquez, Crown Counsel

    Issues:


    Appeal against conviction and sentence – Unlawful
    carnal knowledge

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Directions

    Result / Order:


    Bearing in mind that the respondent has filed
    submissions in this matter:

    1.

    Leave is granted to the appellant to file and serve
    skeleton arguments together with authorities on or
    before 28th December 2016;

    2.

    Leave is granted to the Director of Public
    Prosecutions, if necessary, to file and serve skeleton
    arguments in answer on or before 31st
    January 2017;

    3.

    Hearing of this appeal is adjourned and traversed to
    the next sitting of the Court of Appeal in the
    Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis during the
    week commencing 13th March 2017 for final
    adjournment.

    Reason:


    The appellant made an application for an adjournment in
    order to retain counsel.

    Case Name:

    Evans Amory

    v

    The Director of Public Prosecutions

    [SKBHCRAP2012/0016A]

    Date:

    Tuesday, 11th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Humphrey Stollmeyer, Justice of Appeal
    [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    In person

    Respondent:

    Mr. Vaughn Henderson, Crown Counsel

    Issues:


    Appeal against conviction and sentence – Indecent
    assault – Application for leave to amend grounds of
    appeal

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Oral Judgment or Decision

    Result / Order:

    1.

    Leave is granted to the appellant to amend ground 1 of
    his appeal to read as follows “(a) The learned judge
    failed to grant the appellant adequate time to prepare
    his defence in the matter contrary to the provisions of
    the Constitution of St. Christopher and Nevis; (b) The
    learned judge failed to adequately direct the jury on
    the issue of the discrepancies in the evidence at the
    trial; (c) The learned judge failed to properly direct
    the jury on the issue of corroboration in sexual
    offences, this appeal being related to a sexual offence
    committed on a child.” Ground 2 remains as it relates
    to the sentence being too harsh;

    2.

    Leave is granted to the appellant to file and serve
    submissions on or before 13th December 2016;

    3.

    Leave is granted to respondent to file and serve
    submissions with authorities on or before 13 th January 2017;

    4.

    The hearing of this appeal is adjourned and traversed
    to the next sitting of the Court of Appeal in the
    Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis during the
    week commencing 13th March 2017.

    Reason:


    The appellant made an application to amend his grounds
    of appeal. Counsel for the respondent did not object to
    the application.

    Case Name:

    Clayton Laws

    v

    The Director of Public Prosecutions

    [SKBHCRAP2013/0001]

    Jermaine Riley

    v

    The Director of Public Prosecutions

    [SKBHCRAP2013/0002]

    Ali Percival

    v

    The Director of Public Prosecutions

    [SKBHCRAP2013/0003]

    Jahmana Walters

    V

    The Director of Public Prosecutions

    [SKBHCRAP2013/0004]

    Date:

    Tuesday, 11th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Humphrey Stollmeyer, Justice of Appeal
    [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellants:

    Mr. Jason Hamilton (for Clayton Laws)


    Dr. Henry Browne, QC, with him, Mr. O’Grenville Browne
    (for Ali Percival)

    Mr. Hesketh Benjamin (for Jermaine Riley)


    Ms. Marsha Henderson, with her, Mr. Vaughn Woodley (for
    Jahmana Walters)

    Respondent:

    Mr. Vaughn Henderson, Crown Counsel

    Issues:


    Appeal against conviction and sentence – Kidnapping

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Directions

    Result / Order:

    1.

    Leave is granted to all of the appellants to file and
    serve skeleton arguments together with authorities on
    or before 14th December 2016;

    2.

    Leave is granted to the Director of Public Prosecutions
    to file and serve skeleton arguments together with
    authorities on or before 13th January 2017;

    3.

    Leave is granted to the appellants, if necessary, to
    file and serve submissions in answer on or before 31 st January 2017;

    4.

    The hearing of this appeal is adjourned and traversed
    to the next sitting of the Court of Appeal in the
    Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis during the
    week commencing 13th March 2017.

    Reason:


    Counsel for the appellants made an application for an
    adjournment. There was no objection by the respondent.

    Case Name:

    Sylvester Merchant

    v

    The Director of Public Prosecutions

    [SKBHCRAP2013/0014]

    Date:

    Wednesday, 12th October 2016

    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

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    Dr. Henry Browne, QC

    Respondent:

    Mr. Teshaun Vasquez, Crown Counsel

    Issues:


    Appeal against conviction and sentence – Unlawful
    carnal knowledge

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Directions

    Result / Order:


    The Registrar is directed to ensure the completion of
    the transcript in this matter and the matter is
    adjourned to the next sitting of the Court of Appeal in
    the Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis during
    the week commencing 13th March 2017.

    Reason:


    The record of appeal had not been completed as yet.

    Case Name:

    Razba Matthew

    v

    The Director of Public Prosecutions

    [SKBHCRAP2011/0021]

    Date:

    Wednesday, 12th October 2016

    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

    Appearances:

    Appellant:


    Ms. Marsha Henderson, with her, Mr. Vaughn Woodley

    Respondent:


    Mr. Valston Graham, Director of Public Prosecutions,
    with him, Mr. Teshaun Vasquez, Crown Counsel

    Issues:


    Appeal against conviction and sentence – Manslaughter

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Directions

    Result / Order:

    1.

    The appellant has leave to file amended grounds of
    appeal on or before the 31st October 2016
    and file and serve submissions with authorities on or
    before 30th November 2016.

    2.

    The respondent has leave to file and serve submissions
    with authorities in response on or before 28 th December 2016.

    3.

    The appellant has leave to file and serve submissions
    in reply if necessary on or before 16th
    January 2017.

    4.

    The hearing of this appeal is adjourned to the next
    sitting of the Court of Appeal in the Federation of
    Saint Christopher and Nevis during the week commencing
    the 13th March 2017.

    Reason:


    Counsel for the appellant received her instructions
    late.

    Case Name:

    Steadroy Scott

    v

    The Director of Public Prosecutions

    [SKBHCRAP2012/0021]

    Date:

    Wednesday, 12th October 2016

    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

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    In person

    Respondent:


    Mr. Valston Graham, Director of Public Prosecutions,
    with him, Mr. Teshaun Vasquez, Crown Counsel

    Issues:


    Appeal against sentence – Wounding with intent –
    Whether 10 year sentence imposed by learned trial judge
    was unfair and excessive

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    N/A

    Result / Order:


    Matter stood down to Thursday, 13th October
    2016 at 2:00 p.m.

    Reason:


    The matter was stood down to allow the Director of
    Public Prosecutions an opportunity to look at the
    record of appeal and to be able to respond on the issue
    of sentencing.

    Case Name:

    Carl Matthew

    v

    The Director of Public Prosecutions

    [SKBHCRAP2013/0012]

    Date:

    Wednesday, 12th October 2016

    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

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    Ms. Natasha Grey

    Respondent:

    Mr. Teshaun Vasquez, Crown Counsel

    Issues:


    Appeal against conviction and sentence – Shooting with
    intent to cause grievous bodily harm – Application by
    appellant for leave to file submissions

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Oral judgment or decision

    Result / Order:

    1.

    Leave is granted to the appellant to file and serve
    submissions with authorities on or before 15 th November 2016.

    2.

    Leave is granted to the respondent to file and serve
    submissions on or before 15th December 2016.

    3.

    The appellant has leave to file and serve submissions
    in reply if necessary on or before the 30th
    January 2017.

    4.

    The hearing of the appeal is adjourned to the next
    sitting of the Court of Appeal in the Federation of St.
    Christopher and Nevis during the week commencing 13
    March 2017.

    Reason:


    Counsel for the appellant did not have sufficient time
    to file her submissions after receiving the record.

    Case Name:

    Quincy Davis

    v

    The Director of Public Prosecutions

    [SKBHCRAP2013/0005]

    Date:

    Wednesday, 12th October 2016

    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

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    Mr. Hesketh Benjamin

    Respondent:

    Mr. Esan Granderson, Crown Counsel

    Issues:


    Appeal against conviction and sentence – Unlawful
    carnal knowledge – Application for adjournment

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Directions

    Result / Order:

    1.

    The respondent shall serve a copy of his submissions
    with authorities that was filed on 4th
    October 2016 on the appellant on or before 21 st October 2016.

    2.

    The appellant shall file and serve submissions with
    authorities in response on or before 15th
    December 2016.

    3.

    The respondent has leave to file and serve submissions
    with authorities in answer on or before 16th
    January 2017.

    4.

    Hearing of this appeal is adjourned to the next sitting
    of the Court of Appeal in the Federation of Saint
    Christopher and Nevis during the week commencing the 13 th March 2017.

    Reason:


    Counsel for the appellant received his instructions
    late.

    Case Name:

    SK Nevis Resort LLC

    v

    Glenford Roberts

    [SKBHCVAP2016/0002]

    Date:

    Wednesday, 12th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]


    The Hon. Mr. Humphrey Stollmeyer, Justice of Appeal
    [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:


    Ms. Nadia Chiesa, with her, Ms. Marline Uter

    Respondent:


    Mr. Glenford Hamilton, with him, Ms. Sharina Laws

    Issues:


    Interlocutory appeal against decision of learned judge
    dismissing appellant’s application to set aside default
    judgment entered for specified sum – Whether default
    judgment irregular as claim was not for specified sum
    and default judgment entered pursuant to rule
    12.10(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2000

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Oral Judgment or Decision

    Result / Order:

    1.

    The appeal is allowed to the extent that the order of
    the learned High Court judge in relation to the sum
    awarded in the default of $80,000.00 is set aside, the
    default judgment stands;

    2.

    The matter is remitted to the High Court for assessment
    of damages to be paid to the respondent;

    3.

    Costs in the sum of $750.00 to the appellant.

    Reason:


    Counsel for the respondent conceded that there should
    not have been a specified sum and the learned judge
    erred in entering the judgment in default for a
    specified sum.

    Case Name:

    Nancy Vasile

    v

    [1] Steven Englander

    [2] Fern Englander

    [SKBHCVAP2015/0023]

    Date:

    Wednesday, 12th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]


    The Hon. Mr. Humphrey Stollmeyer, Justice of Appeal
    [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    Ms. Keisha Spence

    Respondents:

    Mr. Dustin Delany

    Issues:


    Whether learned master erred in holding that New York
    was convenient forum or clearly or distinctly a more
    appropriate forum for hearing of matter

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Oral Judgment or Decision

    Result / Order:

    1.
    The appeal is dismissed.

    2.

    Costs in the sum of $1,000.00 to the respondent.

    Reason:


    The learned master did not err in determining that New
    York was the “centre of gravity” for the trial of
    matter ( Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd
    [1987] AC 460 applied;

    SFC Swiss Forfaiting Company Ltd. v Swiss
    Forfaiting Ltd

    BVIHCMAP2015/0012 (delivered 4th July 2016,
    unreported) followed).

    Case Name:

    The Democrat Printing Company Limited

    v


    The Right Honourable Dr. Denzil Llewellyn Douglas

    [SKBHCVAP2013/0026]

    Date:

    Wednesday, 12th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]


    The Hon. Mr. Humphrey Stollmeyer, Justice of Appeal
    [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:


    Mr. Jonel Powell, with him, Ms. Kimloy Walker

    Respondent:

    Ms. Angelina Gracy Sookoo

    Issues:


    Whether learned master failed in her duty to examine
    the gravity of defamation – Whether learned master
    erred in holding that where a judgment in default is
    given the defendant is deemed to admit the truth of the
    allegations in the statement of claim – Whether quantum
    of damages was excessive

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Oral Judgment or Decision

    Result / Order:

    1.

    The appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the learned
    trial judge who was then a master is affirmed in the
    assessment of damages.

    2.

    Costs agreed in the sum of $2,500.00 for the
    respondent.

    3.

    The counter notice of appeal is struck out since the
    respondent no longer pursues this notice of
    application.

    Reason:


    Once the default judgment was granted it was not open
    to the learned master at the assessment to examine
    whether the words complained of were defamatory. The
    master accordingly did not err by not so doing.


    In the circumstances of this case, at the assessment
    hearing, where the appellant had put in no evidence
    challenging the evidence of the respondent as it
    related to the defamation, and with the respondent not
    having been cross-examined to test the truth of the
    evidence, it was open to the learned master to accept
    the evidence as true.


    The law is settled as to when an appellate court can
    properly interfere with an award of damages. The review
    function of the appellate court is to determine whether
    the exercise of the trial judge’s discretion was
    plainly wrong having regard to the matters to be
    considered and the generous ambit to be accorded to the
    judge (

    Terrence Calix v Attorney General of Trinidad and
    Tobago

    [2013] UKPC 15 applied).


    The master’s award can only be disturbed where it is an
    entirely erroneous estimate of the damages that ought
    to have been awarded to the person who was defamed –

    Glen Lall & National Media and Publishing
    Company Limited v Walter Ramsahoye

    [2016] CCJ 18 (AJ) was persuasive. Nance v British Columbia Rly Co Ltd [1951] AC
    601 applied.


    The quantum of damages awarded by the learned master
    was clearly within the ambit of her discretion and
    cannot be said to be clearly wrong. The Court therefore
    held that there was no basis for it to interfere with
    the proper exercise of the learned master’s discretion.

    Calvin v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

    applied.

    Glen Lall & National Media and Publishing
    Company Limited v Walter Ramsahoye

    [2016] CCJ 18 (AJ) applied).

    Case Name:

    Anne Hendricks Bass

    v

    [1] Director of Physical Planning

    [2] Development Advisory Committee

    [SKBHCVAP2016/0004]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Humphrey Stollmeyer, Justice of Appeal
    [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant / Applicant:


    Mr. Damian Kelsick, with him, Mr. Garth Wilkin

    Respondents:


    Ms. Jean M. Dyer (for the 1st and 2 nd respondents)


    Ms. Talibah Byron (for Caribbean Development Consultant
    Ltd (the Developer))

    Issues:


    Application for leave for judicial review to be heard
    before a new court – Application for leave to have
    Developer, Caribbean Development Consultant Ltd added
    as respondent to proceedings

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Directions

    Result / Order:

    1.

    The hearing of the application for leave to apply for
    judicial review is set for 1st November 2016
    at 9:00 a.m. The Court having allowed the appeal of the
    preliminary applications further orders as follows: The
    application for leave for judicial review is remitted
    to the court below before a different judge on 1 st November 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

    2.

    The Developer, Caribbean Development Consultant Limited
    – hereafter called “The Developer” – is hereby granted
    leave to appear and be heard in the said matter.

    3.

    The Developer shall file and serve submissions and
    authorities no later than 23rd October 2016.

    4.

    The applicant and the respondent if necessary shall
    file and serve any evidence in reply on 27th
    October 2016, no later than 3:30 p.m.

    5.

    The applicant and the 1st and 2nd
    respondents shall file and serve any further
    submissions by Thursday, 27th October 2016.

    6.

    If necessary the applicant is at liberty to pursue the
    stay of the application until 1st November
    2016.

    7.

    Any further application shall be filed and served by
    the respective parties, that is, the applicant by 21st October 2016 and the 1st and 2 nd respondents by 27th October
    2016.

    8.

    These costs shall be paid by the respondent. Cost of
    the appeal on the preliminary application to be
    assessed by the master unless agreed within 14 days by
    counsel.

    Case Name:

    [1] Wilmot Alleyne

    [2] Audrey Alleyne

    v


    St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla National Bank Ltd.

    [SKBHCVAP2015/0019]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal

    Appearances:

    Appellants:

    No appearance

    Respondent:

    No appearance

    Issues:


    Interlocutory appeal – Sale of property – Liquidation
    of debt – Whether learned judge erred in ordering that
    new date be set for sale of property – Whether learned
    judge took into account irrelevant considerations in
    reaching decision – Whether respondent’s grounds for
    application for new date to sell property insufficient
    and unsatisfactory

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Oral Judgment or Decision

    Result / Order:


    The appeal, having been discontinued, is accordingly
    dismissed.

    Reason:


    A notice of discontinuance was filed on 28th
    September 2016.

    Case Name:

    Seth Foster

    v

    Ocean Reefs Resorts Limited

    [SKBHCVAP2016/0008]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal

    Appearances:

    Appellant:


    Ms. Dahlia Joseph Rowe, with her, Mr. Ricaldo Caines

    Respondent:


    Dr. Henry Browne, QC, with him, Ms. Anmarieta Staines

    Issues:


    Sale of property – Contract – Whether contract of sale
    valid and binding on parties and remained in full force
    and effect – Whether learned trial judge erred in
    determining that appellant was not in breach of
    paragraphs 1, 3, 6, 9 of Schedule to consent order –
    Whether learned trial judge erred in holding that court
    is empowered to vary the settlement agreement between
    the parties – Whether learned trial judge erred in
    exercise of her discretion in granting extension of
    time requested by respondent – Whether learned trial
    judge took into consideration relevant factors
    exercising her discretion on whether to grant
    respondent extension of time – Whether learned trial
    judge failed to consider that parties entered into
    settlement agreement and subsequent consent order
    freely so that they ought to be held by the terms of
    their bargain – Whether learned trial judge erred in
    ordering appellant to pay costs to the respondent in
    sum of $1,500.00

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Oral Judgment or Decision

    Result / Order:

    1.
    The appeal is allowed.

    2.

    The judgment of the learned trial judge of 14 th June 2016 is hereby set aside in its
    entirety.

    3.

    Costs are to be borne by the respondent to be assessed
    by the master if not agreed in 14 days.

    Reason:


    There was a fundamental error in the manner in which
    the trial was brought. The case raised issues that were
    not covered by rule 26.1(2)(k) of the Civil Procedure
    Rules 2000 (which deals with the court’s case
    management power to extend or shorten the time for
    compliance with any rule, practice direction, order, or
    direction of the court).


    The Court was also of the view that the proceedings
    were done in breach of the principles of natural
    justice.

    Case Name:

    Keithlyn Bergan

    v

    Sheryl Evans

    [SKBHCVAP2014/0021]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mde Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal

    Appearances:

    Appellant:


    Mr. Damian Kelsick, with him, Mr. Garth Wilkin

    Respondent:


    Ms. Angelina Gracy Sookoo instructed by Ms. Rénal
    Edwards

    Issues:


    Interlocutory appeal – Personal injury claim –
    Admissibility of expert evidence – s. 163 of the
    Evidence Act, 2011 – Part 32 of the Civil Procedure
    Rules 2000 – Whether learned trial judge erred in law
    when he ruled that the objectives of CPR Part 32 are
    not interfered with by the ‘clear operation’ of s. 163
    of the Evidence Act, 2011 – Admissibility in civil
    proceedings of prior criminal conviction as evidence of
    conduct constituting offence – s. 91(2) of the Evidence
    Act, 2011

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:


    Oral Judgment with Written Reasons to Follow

    Result / Order:

    1.

    The appeal is dismissed. Written reasons to follow.

    2.

    The appellant shall bear the cost of the appeal fixed
    as agreed at 2/3 of the cost awarded in the court
    below.

    Reason:


    The Court was of the view that the issues raised could
    benefit from some written guidelines and accordingly
    written reasons will follow.

    Case Name:

    Eartis Harris

    v

    The Director of Public Prosecutions

    [SKBHCVAP2013/0010]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    Ms. Natasha Grey

    Respondent:

    Mr. Esan Granderson, Crown Counsel

    Issues:


    Appeal against conviction and sentence – Indecent
    assault – Application for leave to amend grounds of
    appeal to remove ground (a) relating to whether the
    learned trial judge’s directions to jury on
    corroboration evidence were inadequate – Whether
    learned trial judge allowed evidence in trial which was
    prejudicial to appellant – Whether learned trial judge
    failed to give good character direction – Whether fact
    that appellant’s counsel received instructions late
    affected appellant’s right to fair trial – Whether
    sentence imposed on appellant unduly harsh and severe

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Oral Judgment or Decision

    Result / Order:

    1.
    The 1st ground is dismissed.

    2.

    The 2nd and 3rd grounds are
    dismissed.

    3.

    The appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of
    the learned trial judge of 2 years, 2 years and 4 years
    to run consecutively is set aside and replaced with a
    sentence of 5 years on each count of indecent assault,
    to run concurrently.

    Reason:


    Although the Court was of the view that the learned
    trial judge ought not to have allowed evidence that was
    not part of the charge to become part of the trial, the
    Court held that this was not fatal. In the
    circumstances, there was no prejudice to the appellant;
    the virtual complainant was merely telling the story of
    the offence that took place.


    The appellant had no previous convictions and was
    entitled to a good character direction ( Mark Teeluck, Jason Ellis John v The State
    [2005] UKPC 14 applied). When the defendant is of good
    character he is entitled to a good character direction
    tailored to fit the circumstances of the case. However,
    if it is omitted it would not be rare for the Court of
    Appeal to say that this did not affect the appellant’s
    case. Where credibility is in issue it is always
    relevant. The defendant’s good character must be
    elicited by his counsel and it is necessary for it to
    be raised in the defence. The learned trial judge has
    no duty to raise it ( Kizza Sealey, Marvin Headley v The State
    [2002] UKPC 52 applied). However, applying the
    authority Uriah Browne v The Queen [2005] UKPC
    18, the Court held that having regard to the eyewitness
    evidence and the poor alibi evidence of the appellant,
    and being of the view that the jury would have properly
    convicted even if they had been given a good character
    direction, this case was an appropriate one to apply
    the proviso. Additionally, there was no factual basis
    that failure of counsel to raise good character
    evidence was due to his incompetence or negligence.
    Accordingly, this ground of appeal was dismissed.


    The Court was of the view that (at page 196 of the
    transcript) the appellant was curtailed by the trial
    judge and also, that he was prevented from raising his
    mitigating factors (at page 197 of the transcript).
    This was taken into account, as well as the fact that
    appellant had no previous convictions and that it
    seemed as though no consideration had been given to the
    Social Inquiry Report. The Court noted, however, that
    the sentences of 2, 2 and 4 years imposed by the
    learned trial judge were lenient.

    Case Name:

    [1] Exzavier Elliott

    [2] Junior Stephens

    v

    The Director of Public Prosecutions

    [SKBHCRAP2012/0015]

    [SKBHCRAP2012/0017A]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr Paul Webster, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    Both in person

    Respondent:


    Mr. Valston Graham, Director of Public Prosecutions

    Issues:



    Appeal involving Exzavier Elliot –
    SKBHCRAP2012/0015


    Appeal against conviction and sentence – Robbery –
    Assault – Whether CCTV evidence was wrongfully admitted
    into evidence – Whether fact that appellant was
    interrupted during trial prevented him from having fair
    trial – Whether learned trial judge erred in allowing
    confession statement into evidence – Whether sentence
    imposed by learned trial judge was too harsh



    Appeal involving Junior Stephens –
    SKBHCRAP2012/0017A


    Appeal against conviction and sentence – Robbery –
    Assault – Whether fact that appellant was interrupted
    during trial prevented him from having fair trial –
    Whether identification evidence was poor and therefore
    unsafe

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Oral Judgment or Decision

    Result / Order:

    1.

    Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed and
    sentence is affirmed for Exzavier Elliott.

    2.

    Appeal against conviction and sentence of the appellant
    Junior Stephens is dismissed and sentence is affirmed.

    Reason:


    The Court held that a trial judge must exercise a
    certain latitude in allowing unrepresented persons to
    ask questions. He must also manage the trial. Bearing
    this in mind, it was the Court’s view that the learned
    judge’s interruption went too far in the appellant’s
    cross-examination of PC Monique Norford. The appellant
    Junior Stephens asked PC Norford whether the bag had
    any distinctive marks. The learned trial judge
    interrupted. He later allowed PC Norford to answer and
    then said she said the bag had “JanSport” on it. This
    Court was of the view that this was not a distinctive
    mark but rather, a name brand. Junior Stephens also
    cross-examined PC Norford on the scars that appeared on
    the face of the person seen on the CCTV and put to her
    that the scars did not reflect any scars on his face
    and asked that the jurors come closer to him to see
    whether he had any scars.


    The Court was of the view that the interruptions were
    not sufficient to render the trial unsafe. Ground 1 of
    the appeal was dismissed for both appellants. PC
    Norford indicated in evidence that there were 2 scars:
    one by right side of the nose, one by the left eye. In
    cross-examination she could only see the scar on the
    right side of nose but not the one on left eye. This
    was good evidence and the jurors would have heard this.
    Accordingly, this ground was also dismissed and so too
    the appeal of Junior Stephens.


    Although the Court was of the view that the learned
    trial judge did not do anything improper with the
    statement given by the appellant Exzavier Elliott, the
    Court takes issue with the procedure adopted for the
    admission of the statement. The learned trial judge was
    right to have a voir dire (Ajodha v The State
    [1982] AC 204 applied). However, the learned trial
    judge erred when he told Exzavier Elliott to come to
    the witness box, where he gave evidence. The two police
    officers who took the statement gave evidence and
    confirmed that the appellant gave the evidence
    voluntarily. However, this placed the burden of proving
    the voluntariness of the statement on the appellant
    which was not proper. The Court was of the view that
    there was an abundance of evidence to find that the
    statement was made voluntarily.


    Notwithstanding, however, that the incorrect procedure
    was used by the trial judge in taking the statement,
    this would not have vitiated the conviction of Exzavier
    Elliott. The Court was satisfied that there was no
    basis to vary the appellant’s sentence. There were
    prior convictions by the appellant for similar offences
    and he showed no sign of remorse. In the circumstances,
    this Court could find no basis to interfere with the
    sentence imposed by the learned trial judge.

    CASE MANAGEMENT

    Case Name:

    Adam Bilzerian

    v

    Kevin Horstwood

    [SKBHCVAP2015/0028]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mde. Louise Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal

    Appearances:

    Appellant / Applicant:

    No appearance

    Respondent:

    In person

    Issues:


    Appeal against decision of learned judge denying
    appellant’s application for declaration of contempt
    against respondent – Application to have written
    reasons of the High Court for order dated 2 nd October 2015

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Directions

    Result / Order:

    1.

    The Court proposes to deal with this application on 3 rd November 2016.

    2.

    The Court directs that any affidavit evidence be filed
    by 21st October 2016 as well as any written
    submissions. The application by Adam Bilzerian for
    written reasons of the decision of the court below made
    on 2nd October 2015 shall be heard on paper
    on 3rd November 2016.

    3.

    The respondent Kevin Horstwood is at liberty to file
    and serve affidavit evidence and written submissions in
    response to the application by Friday, 21st
    October 2016 at 3.30 p.m.

    4.

    The applicant Adam Bilzerian is at liberty to file and
    serve evidence in reply and reply submissions if any by
    Thursday, 27th October 2016.

    5.

    No further applications or evidence shall be filed in
    this matter without the court’s permission.

    Case Name:

    Kevin Andrew Horstwood

    v

    Adam Bilzerian

    [SKBHCVAP2016/0003]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    Mr. Terence Byron

    Respondent:

    No appearance

    Issues:


    2nd application by respondent to dismiss
    appeal – Application by respondent to strike out the
    appellant’s affidavit in opposition to the 2 nd application to dismiss appeal –
    Application by respondent for enlargement of time for
    filing additional documents – Application to strike
    appellant’s bundle of documents

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Directions

    Result/Order:

    1.

    The second application to dismiss the appeal shall be
    heard first.

    2.

    The applicant Adam Bilzerian shall file and serve a
    list of the documents together with copies of
    authorities to which this application relates for
    inclusion in the appeal record no later than Friday, 21 st October 2016 at 3.30 pm.

    3.

    The appellant shall file and serve written submissions
    on all 4 procedural applications no later than 21 st October 2016 at 3.30 p.m.

    4.

    The respondent Adam Bilzerian shall be at liberty to
    file and serve reply submission in respect of all 4
    applications by Thursday, 27th October 2016
    at 3.30 pm.

    5.

    No further applications or evidence shall be filed in
    relation to these applications without the permission
    of the Court.

    Case Name:

    Caribbean Building Systems (St. Kitts) Ltd

    v

    [1] Colin Parry


    [2] First Caribbean International Bank (Barbados)
    Limited

    [SKBHCVAP2014/0025]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    Unrepresented

    Respondents:


    Ms. Camilla Cato (for the 1st respondent)


    Mr. J. Emile Ferdinand, QC, with him, Mr. Garth Wilkin
    (for the 2nd respondent) (Mr. Peter Irish,
    representative of the Bank, was also present)

    Issues:


    Jurisdiction – Appeal against order of learned master
    directing non-party to file and serve amended defence
    on behalf of appellant notwithstanding existence of
    injunction prohibiting said non-party from ‘in any way
    interfering in the running of or the affairs of’ the
    appellant Whether learned master had jurisdiction to
    make order

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Directions

    Result / Order:

    1.

    The Court takes a note of para. 10 of the applicant’s
    submission pointed out by Learned Queen’s Counsel as it
    relates to Mr. Horstwood standing to represent
    Caribbean Building Systems.

    2.

    The appeal will come on for hearing following the
    outcome of Appeal No. 3 of 2016 Kevin Horstwood v Adam
    Bilzerian.

    Case Name:

    Caribbean Building Systems (St. Kitts) Ltd

    v

    [1] Simon Briggs


    [2] First Caribbean International Bank (Barbados)
    Limited

    [SKBHCVAP2014/0026]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    No appearance

    Respondents:


    Mr. J. Emile Ferdinand, QC (for the 2nd
    respondent)

    Issues:


    Jurisdiction – Appeal against order of learned master
    directing non-party to file and serve amended defence
    on behalf of appellant notwithstanding existence of
    injunction prohibiting said non-party from ‘in any way
    interfering in the running of or the affairs of’ the
    appellant Whether learned master had jurisdiction to
    make order

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Directions

    Result / Order:

    1.

    The 2nd respondent asked the Court to look
    at para. 10 of the submissions of the appellant filed 4 th February 2015 which was stated in broad
    terms as it relates to Mr. Horstwood standing as it
    relates to Caribbean Building Systems.

    2.

    This appeal will come on for hearing following the
    outcome of Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2016 Kevin Horstwood v
    Adam Bilzerian.

    Case Name:

    Adam Bilzerian

    v

    [1] Zachary Getz

    [2] St Christopher Club Condominiums


    [3] St Christopher Club Condominiums Homeowners
    Association

    [SKBHCVAP2016/0006]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    No appearance

    Respondents:


    Ms. Miselle O’Brien (for the 1st and 3 rd respondents)


    No appearance on behalf of the 2nd
    respondent (unrepresented)

    Issues:


    Application to strike respondent’s notice of opposition
    – Application in opposition to application to strike
    respondent’s notice of opposition

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Directions

    Result / Order:

    1.

    The procedural application to strike the notice of
    opposition will be heard on paper on 3rd
    November 2016. The 1st and 3rd respondents
    may file and serve submissions in respect of the
    substantive appeal no later than Friday, 21 st October 2016 at 3.30 p.m.

    2.

    The appellant shall be at liberty to reply.

    3.

    The appellant shall file and serve reply submissions by
    Friday, 4th November 2016 at 3.30 p.m.

    4.

    There shall be no further applications or further
    evidence without the leave of the Court.

    Case Name:

    [1] Kevin Andrew Horstwood

    [2] Exclusive Hotels Limited

    v


    [1] First Caribbean Bank International [Barbados]
    Limited

    [2] Belmont Resorts Limited

    [3] The Registrar of the High Court


    [4] Attorney General of the Federation of St Kitts and
    Nevis

    [5] Kate Walwyn

    [6] Lemon Grove Company Limited

    [SKBHCVAP2016/0013]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal

    Appearances:

    Appellants / Applicants:

    Mr. Terence Byron

    Respondents:

    No appearance

    Issues:


    Application for leave to appeal against order of
    learned judge dismissing applicants’ application to be
    joined as interested parties in claim and ordering that
    applicants pay costs to respondents – Application for
    extension of time to apply for leave to appeal

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Oral Judgment or Decision

    Result / Order:

    1.
    Leave to appeal is hereby granted.

    2.

    The applicants shall withdraw by Monday, 17 th October 2016 the application made for
    leave to appeal in the court below.

    3.

    The notice of appeal is to be filed in accordance with
    Part 62 of Civil Procedure Rules.

    Reason:


    The Court considered that there was an arguable case on
    the issue of the costs awarded by the learned judge and
    therefore granted the applicants leave to appeal costs
    in accordance with Part 62.

    Case Name:

    Adam Bilzerian

    v

    [1] Gerald Lou Weiner

    [2] Kathleen Ann Weiner

    [SKBHCVAP2015/0015]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE, Chief Justice


    The Hon. Mde. Louise E. Blenman, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom, Justice of Appeal

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    Unrepresented

    Respondents:

    Ms. Jean Dyer

    Issues:


    Application to reinstate Court of Appeal decision given
    in interlocutory appeal on 27th January 2016
    – Application to strike affidavit in opposition to
    application to reinstate

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Directions

    Result / Order:

    1.

    In relation to the affidavit to reinstate, the Court
    will not permit the affidavit of Paul Bilzerian, which
    the court finds very disrespectful. He is given a
    choice to withdraw or be found in contempt.

    2.

    Affidavit is withdrawn and stricken from the record as
    being scandalous and contemptuous of the court.

    3.

    The procedural applications that is the application to
    reinstate and affidavit to strike the application will
    be heard by the Court on paper on 3rd
    November 2016.

    4.

    In relation to this matter there shall be no further
    application or evidence without the permission of the
    Court.

    5.

    The respondent shall file and serve submissions and
    affidavit evidence by 21st October 2016 at
    3.30 p.m. and thereafter there shall be no further
    application or evidence save that the applicant is at
    liberty to file and serve submissions in reply by 27 th October 2016 at 3.30 p.m.

    APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS

    Case Name:

    Calvin Prentice

    v

    [1] Jamie Wilkinson

    [2] Deon & Associates

    [SKBHCVAP2016/0010]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    Ms. Felicia Johnson

    Respondent:

    Mr. Terence Byron

    Issues:


    Interlocutory appeal – Default judgment – Whether
    learned master erred in holding that there were
    exceptional circumstances which justified setting aside
    default judgment obtained by appellant – Whether
    learned master erred in interpreting and applying rules
    12.9(2) and 13.3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2000 –
    Application (by 2nd respondent) to have time
    extended pursuant of rule 26.2(k) of the Civil
    Procedure Rules 2000 to file notice of opposition to
    notice of appeal and to file written submissions and
    counter-notice of appeal – Application for adjournment

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Directions

    Result / Order:

    1.

    The respondent is to file and serve submissions in
    support of the application filed on 13th
    October 2016 for extension of time to defend or
    prosecute appeal on or before the 31st
    October 2016;

    2.

    The appellant is to file and serve submissions and
    authorities in response on or before 30th
    November 2016;

    3.

    The hearing to this appeal is adjourned to the next
    sitting of the Court of Appeal in the Federation of
    Saint Christopher and Nevis during the week commencing
    13th March 2017;

    4.

    Costs of the application to the appellant in the sum of
    $1,000.00.

    Reason:


    Counsel for the respondent made an application to
    adjourn the hearing of application filed on 13 th October 2016. The appellant objected to
    this application for an adjournment.

    Case Name:

    Sankofa Maccabbee

    v

    The Chief of Police

    [SKBMCRAP2015/0007]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:


    Mr. O’Grenville Browne holding papers for Dr. Henry
    Browne, QC

    Respondent:

    Mr. Esan Granderson, Crown Counsel

    Issues:


    Appeal against conviction and sentence – Possession of
    cannabis – Possession of cannabis with intent to supply
    – Cultivation of cannabis – Whether learned judge’s
    decision unreasonable or cannot be supported having
    regard to evidence – Whether sentence imposed unduly
    severe – Inconsistencies in evidence before learned
    magistrate – Whether learned magistrate failed to take
    appellant’s good character into consideration during
    trial – Handling of evidence by police

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Directions

    Result / Order:

    1.

    The hearing of this appeal is adjourned to the next
    sitting of the Court of Appeal in the Federation of St.
    Christopher and Nevis during the week commencing 13 th March 2017;

    2.

    Leave is granted to the appellant to file and serve
    amended submissions in support of the appeal within 2
    months of today’s date;

    3.

    Leave is granted to the respondent to file and serve
    supplemental submissions within 1 month of service of
    the appellant’s amended submissions;

    4.

    Leave is granted to the appellant to file submissions
    in reply to the respondent’s supplemental submissions
    within 1 month of service thereof.

    Reason:


    Counsel for the appellant made an application for an
    adjournment. There was no objection from counsel for
    the respondent.

    Case Name:

    Thuan Audain

    v

    The Chief of Police

    [SKBMCRAP2015/0001]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:


    Mr. Chesley Hamilton, with him, Ms. Marsha Henderson

    Respondent:

    Mr. Vaughan Henderson, Crown Counsel

    Issues:


    Appeal against conviction and sentence – Possession of
    firearm and ammunition – Whether the learned magistrate
    erred and misdirected himself on facts and law –
    Whether sentence imposed on appellant too harsh – Time
    spent on remand not taken into account

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Oral Judgment or Decision

    Result / Order:

    1.

    The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

    2.

    The appeal against sentence is allowed to the extent
    that the period of 5 months is deducted from the
    sentence of 2 years and 7 months imposed by the
    magistrate.

    Case Name:

    Ellia Jeffers

    v

    The Chief of Police

    [SKBMCRAP2015/0015]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    Ms. Marsha Henderson

    Respondent:


    Mr. Valston Graham, Director of Public Prosecutions

    Issues:


    Appeal against conviction and sentence – Importation of
    cocaine – Appellant fined sum of EC$65,000.00 to be
    paid forthwith in default 4 years imprisonment –
    Whether legal evidence substantially affecting merits
    of case rejected by court – Whether decision
    unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to
    evidence – Whether decision erroneous on point of law –
    Whether sentence passed based on wrong principle or was
    such that magistrate viewing the circumstances
    reasonably could not properly have so decided – Whether
    sentence imposed was unduly severe

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Directions

    Result / Order:

    1.

    The appellant shall file and serve written submissions
    in support of appeal within 2 months of this order.

    2.

    The respondent shall file and serve written submissions
    in response within 1 month of service of the
    appellant’s submissions.

    3.

    Leave is granted to the appellant to file submissions
    in reply if necessary within 1 month of service of the
    respondent’s submissions.

    4.

    The hearing of the appeal is adjourned to the next
    sitting of the Court of Appeal in the Federation of St
    Kitts and Nevis during the week commencing 13 th March 2017.

    Reason:


    Counsel for the appellant made an application for an
    adjournment.

    Case Name:

    [1] Zambo Heath

    [2] Marlon Heath

    [3] Joycelyn Ishackey Hodge

    v

    Chief of Police

    [SKBMCRAP2014/0015]

    [SKBMCRAP2014/0016]

    [SKBMCRAP2014/0014]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellants:


    Ms. Marsha Henderson holding papers for Mr. Anthony
    Johnson

    Respondent:


    Mr. Valston Graham, Director of Public Prosecutions

    Issues:


    Appeals against conviction and sentence – Possession of
    controlled drug – Possession of controlled drug with
    intent to supply – Whether decision of learned
    magistrate unreasonable and cannot be supported having
    regard to evidence – Whether judgments passed based on
    wrong principle and were such that a magistrate viewing
    the circumstances reasonably could not properly have
    reached those decisions – Whether the analyst
    certificate was improperly admitted as evidence

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Directions

    Result / Order:

    1.

    The appellants shall file and serve written submissions
    in support of this appeal within 2 months of today’s
    date.

    2.

    The respondent shall file and serve written submissions
    in response within 1 month of service of the
    appellants’ submissions.

    3.

    Leave is granted to the appellants to file submissions
    in reply if necessary within 1 month of service of the
    respondents submissions.

    4.

    The hearing of the appeal is adjourned to the next
    sitting of the Court of Appeal in the Federation of St
    Kitts and Nevis during the week commencing 13 th March 2017.

    Case Name:

    Hitesh Chandwani

    v

    Chief of Police

    [SKBMCRAP2014/0021]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:


    Ms. Marsha Henderson holding papers for Mr. Anthony
    Johnson

    Respondent:

    Mr. Esan Granderson, Crown Counsel

    Issues:


    Appeal against conviction and sentence – Wilful
    exposure of person – Whether decision of learned
    magistrate unreasonable and cannot be supported having
    regard to evidence – Whether decision erroneous on
    point of law – Whether sentence imposed unduly severe –
    Application for leave to withdraw notice of appeal

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Oral Judgment or Decision

    Result / Order:

    1.

    Leave is granted to the appellant to withdraw the
    notice of appeal.

    2.

    The appeal, having been withdrawn, is accordingly
    dismissed.

    Reason:


    Counsel for the appellant made an application to
    withdraw the notice of appeal.

    Case Name:

    Steven Berkeley

    v

    Cable & Wireless

    [SKBMCVAP2014/0006]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    No appearance

    Respondent:

    Ms. Felicia Johnson

    Issues:


    Civil appeal – Appellant’s whereabouts unknown

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Oral Judgment or Decision

    Result / Order:


    The notice of appeal in this matter having been filed
    since June 2014, the appeal is struck out for want of
    prosecution.

    Reason:

    The appellant could not be located.

    Case Name:

    Steadroy Scott

    v

    The Director of Public Prosecutions

    [SKBHCRAP2012/0021]

    Date:

    Thursday, 13th October 2016

    Coram:


    The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel, Justice of Appeal


    The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster, Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

    Appearances:

    Appellant:

    In person

    Respondent:

    Mr. Teshaun Vasquez, Crown Counsel

    Issues:


    Appeal against sentence – Wounding with intent –
    Whether 10 year sentence imposed by learned trial judge
    was unfair and excessive

    Type of Oral Result/Order Delivered:

    Oral Judgment or Decision

    Result / Order:


    The appeal against sentence is allowed to the extent
    that the sentence of 10 years is reduced to 9 years
    with time on remand to be deducted from the sentence.

    Reason:


    The Court was of the opinion that a 10 year sentence
    was too harsh.

    https://www.eccourts.org/court-of-appeal-sittings-10th-14th-october-2016/
     Prev
    Stephen First v Gregory Gilpin-Payne
    Next 
    The Queen v Michael Edwards
    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