James Davis Defendant/Appellant v The Chief of Police Complainant/Respondent [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Judge: DAVIS C.J.,CHIEF JUSTICE
• Judgment Date: 28 April 1976
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1976] ECSC J0428-2
• Docket Number: MAGISTERIAL APPEAL NO. 2 of 1975 CRIMINAL
• Date: 28 April 1976
• Court: Court of Appeal (Anguilla)

[1976] ECSC J0428-2

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Honourable the Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice St. Bernard

The Honourable Mr. Justice Peterkin

MAGISTERIAL APPEAL NO. 2 of 1975 CRIMINAL

Between:

James Davis

Defendant/Appellant

and

The Chief of Police

Complainant/Respondent

Appearances:

E. Walwyn for appellant

Director of Public Prosecution for respondent

1 DAVIS C.J. delivered the Judgment of the Court:

2 The appellant was charged before the Magistrate for District "C" with the offence of being concerned in smuggling of goods, to wit: one Evinrude Outboard Motor, contrary to section 95 of the Trade and Revenue Ordinance, Chapter 258 of the Revised Edition 1961 of the Laws of St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla. He was convicted and fined $100.00 to be paid in two (2) monts and in default to be imprisoned for three (3) months. The Magistrate also declared a forfeiture of the Outboard Motor. He has appealed against this conviction.

3 The evidence led in support of the charge was that the M.V. "Anna Maria" entered the Charlestown Roadstead on the 18th day of March, 1974 with general cargo for that port, and among the cargo listed on the boat's Cargo Manifest, was one carton consigned to the appellant. According to the appellant, he received a message from the captain of the vessel to the effect that his son, Roland Davis in St. Thomas had given him—the captain—something to give to him and it is in his—the captain's—care. The cargo was discharged from the vessel, and according to the witness, Richardson, this was completed about 2.00 p.m. on that day. For some reason, which is not clear from the evidence, the carton consigned to the appellant, was not discharged along with the other cargo. The appellant went to the Charlestown pier about 5.00 p.m. in search of the Captain, St. Clair Caines. He waited for about 2 hours until Caines returned to the pier. Upon Caines' return, Caines and two other members of the crow, lifted the carton from the vessel on to the pier. Soon after this, Vincent Spooner, a sergeant of Police, who deposed that he was in ambush, appeared on the scene, and challenged the captain about his having landed the carton without the permission of the Custom's officer. Spooner looked into the carton and saw that it contained an outboard engine. Caines then left and returned with the appellant, who claimed ownership of the engine. Spooner then said it was against the law to land goods after hours without the permission of the Custom's officer and that he would seize the engine.

4 I should mention here two incidents which were of a highly suspicious nature. One: that the captain had obtained clearance for his vessel to leave the port after the cargo was discharged leaving the carton belonging to the appellant on board, and the other was, that one Freeman was engaged to take the...