Commissioner of Police Appellant v John A. Gumbs Respondent

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Judge: Singh, JA.,Satrohan Singh,Justice of Appeal,Albert Redhead,Ephraim Georges
• Judgment Date: 17 June 2002
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2002] ECSC J0617-1
• Date: 17 June 2002
• Court: Court of Appeal (Anguilla)
• Docket Number: CASE STATED APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2002

[2002] ECSC J0617-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

The Hon. Mr. Satrohan Singh Justice of Appeal

The Hon. Mr. Albert Redhead Justice of Appeal

The Hon. Mr. Ephraim Georges Justice of Appeal (Ag)

CASE STATED APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2002

Between:

Commissioner of Police

Appellant

and

John A. Gumbs

Respondent

Singh, JA.

1 John Gumbs was charged by the police for:1. Wilfully obstructing the free passage of a road by parking motor car A 6603 across the said road, in breach of S38 of the Roads Act Revised Statutes of Anguilla Cap R 65 [The Roads Act.] 2. Wilfully obstructing Sylvia Hodge, a member of the Royal Anguilla Police Force, whilst in the execution of her duty, in breach of S 351 of the Criminal Code Revised Statutes of Anguilla Cap. C140. The second offence related to the first offence.

2 The case for the prosecution was premised on the existence of a public right of way or road over the lands of John Gumbs.

3 John Gumbs claimed that there was no such right of way or road over his lands.

4 In the Court below, Learned Counsel for Gumbs indicated to the Magistrate that John Gumbs was asserting abona fide claim of title to the land in question and therefore the jurisdiction of the Magistrate was ousted.

5 With the consent of both sides, the Magistrate heard evidence from Inspector Sylvia Hodge, in order to determine whether or not there was merit in the assertion of abona fide claim of title to the land in question.

6 Evidenced before the Magistrate was the official map and a certified copy of the land register relating to the disputed property. The Magistrate saw no road on the property of John Gumbs. The prosecution was asserting the existence of such a road based on the concepts of dedication and acquiescence which they hoped to prove by witnesses.

7 The Magistrate then dismissed the first complaint on the basis that it raised "issues relating to title over which this Court had no jurisdiction to preside" and adjourned the second complaintsine die.

THE CASE STATED

8 Pursuant to a notice given to him by the Attorney General, the Magistrate then stated a case for this Court to answer the following questions.

• "(1) Whether the magistrate was correct in law, based on the facts herein in deciding that the magistrate court had no jurisdiction to proceed and determine issues pertaining to title to land in a criminal proceeding, where the defendant asserts title as a defence to the charge(s) herein.

• (2) Assuming the magistrate had no jurisdiction to proceed, did the magistrate err in dismissing complaint number 98/2002.

• (3) Whether where the preliminary issue of jurisdiction of this court and title to land was limited solely to the charge of obstructing apublic road, but the charge of obstructing Inspector Sylvia Hodge in the execution of her duty is alleged to have occurred on the same land, did the magistrate err in adjourning complaint 99/2002 sine die, charging obstruction in the execution of duty pending the outcome of the issues affecting title."

9 The real issue before us therefore was whether the Magistrate was correct in law to decline jurisdiction and dismiss the first complaint on the ground that there was raised before him abona fide claim of title to the land.

THE ISSUE:

10 Halsbury's Laws of England 4^th Ed. Vol. 29 para 307 at pp 171–172 sets out the law on the subject as follows:

"The defendant in a magistrates' court is entitled to set up a claim of right or title to do the act which is the subject of the information, and this claim may oust the court's jurisdiction. The claim of right or title is limited to questions of title to real property. If the claim is made in good faith it is not for the court to inquire into all the circumstances to see if it is impossible. If upon the consideration of admitted facts, it is clear that the law will not admit of the claim, the court's jurisdiction is not ousted, but if in order to decide whether a legal claim exists it is necessary to determine some disputed question of fact, or if it is not clear that the right claimed is impossible in law, the court's jurisdiction is ousted, and in such a case...