George v Chief of Police

• Jurisdiction: Grenada
• Judge: Henriques, C.J.,Heyliger, P.J.
• Judgment Date: 11 January 1962
• Neutral Citation: GD 1962 CA 1
• Docket Number: Criminal Jurisdiction
• Court: Court of Appeal (Grenada)
• Date: 11 January 1962

Court of Appeal

Henriques, C.J.; Heyliger, P.J. (Ag)

Criminal Jurisdiction

Appeal No. 2 of 1961

George

and

Chief of Police

Appearances:

G. E. D. Clyne, for the appellant.

R. G. John, Acting Attorney-General, for the Respondent.

Jurisdiction - Courts — Court of Appeal.

Facts: The appellant was convicted by a Magistrate on November 23. 1960, and filed notice of reasons for appeal on December 14, 1960. The appeal was addressed to the Supreme Court. A new Court of Appeal was created on January 1, 1960, to hear all appeals from Magistrates. The issue was whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Held: The court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, because the (Magistrates Judgment Appeals) Ordinance, 1936 No. 28 (Grenada) was a law which by virtue of the provisions of section 29(3) of the Windward Islands and Leeward Islands (Courts) Order in Council 1959 (S.I. 1959 No. 2197) [U.K.], continued to apply, until repealed or amended, in relation to appeals which may be brought to the Court of Appeal by section of the Order in Council. Provisions must be made with the necessary adaptations in light of the fact that such appeals were to now go to the Court of Appeal. The form of the notice of Appeal must be construed accordingly.

1 The appellant was convicted on the 23rd November, 1960 by the learned Magistrate of the Eastern District of stealing from the field of Archibald Mc Milian certain produce. At the time of his conviction, he gave verbal notice of appeal in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) of subsection 1 of Section 4 of The Magistrates Judgments (Appeals) Ordinance. In compliance with sections 5 and 8 of the same Ordinance he duly entered into a recognisance to prosecute the appeal and served a Notice of Reasons for Appeal. The appeal came on for hearing on the 13th December, 1961, when Mr. G. E. D. Clyne of Counsel appeared for the appellant and the respondent: was represented by Mr. R. G. John, Acting Attorney-General. At the outset the Court invited the appellant's Counsel to satisfy it that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal in view of the nature of the Notice of Reasons for Appeal.

2 The Notice read as follows:-

NOTICE OF REASONS FOR APPEAL

GRENADA

IN THE EASTERN (GRENVILLE) MAGISTRATE'S COURT

CHIEF OF POLICE — Complainant or Informant, or Plaintiff

V.

FRANCIS GEORGE — Defendant

To Mr. J. COMPTON, Magistrate of the Eastern District & (or to the Chief of Police).

3 I, FRANCIS GEORGE of Crochu, St. Andrew's having appealed from the decision of the said Court in the abovementioned cause to the Supreme Court, hereby give you notice that my reasons for appeal are as follows:-

(Here set out reasons for appeal)

• 1. The decision of the learned Magistrate is wrong and against the weight of evidence.

• 2. The learned Magistrate erred in conducting himself the cross-examination of the defendant and his witness.

• 3. The learned Magistrate gives no reason as to why he does not believe the defendant and his witness. His conclusion is not borne out by the evidence, and was prematurely made.

• 4. The sentence is harsh and excessive.

Dated this 14th day of December, 1960.

(Signed) GEORGE E. D. CLYNE,

Solicitor for the Appellant.

4 It was pointed out that the form of the Notice of Reasons for Appeal suggested that the appellant had intended to appeal to the Supreme Court as distinct from the Court of Appeal of the Windward Islands and Leeward Islands when he gave verbal notice of appeal to the Magistrate and to the opposite party in the Court below, and that since the coming into operation of t h e Windward Islands and Leeward Islands (Courts) Order in Council, 1959 all appeals from the decisions of Magistrates Courts had become cognisable by the Court of Appeal. It would appear therefore that the appeal might not properly be before the Court.

5 Mr. Clyne submitted that Section 8 of the Magistrates Judgments (Appeals) Ordinance, 1936, No. 28 of 1936 provided for the form used by the appellant which was to be found in the First Schedule to the Ordinance, and that the section should be read in the light of the provisions of section 30 of the Interpretation Ordinance, Cap.106 of the Revised Laws and that the Court therefore had jurisdiction in the matter. He further drew the...