Reginald Simon Appellant v The Comissioner of Police Respondent [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: Court of Appeal (Montserrat)
• Judge: MICHEL, J.A. [AG.]
• Judgment Date: 05 December 2011
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2011] ECSC J1205-4
• Docket Number: MCRAP 2011/001
• Date: 05 December 2011

[2011] ECSC J1205-4

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon. Mde. Ola Mae Edwards Chief Justice [Ag.]

The Hon. Mr. Francis Belle Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

The Hon. Mr. Mario Michel Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

MCRAP 2011/001

Between:

Reginald Simon

Appellant

and

The Comissioner of Police

Respondent

Appearances:

Mr. Kharl Markham for the Appellant

Ms. Kathy-Ann Pyke, Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent

Magisterial criminal appeal — Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention — Inferences which the learned magistrate could reasonably have drawn having considered all the evidence in the case — Whether the magistrate could have properly reached a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the circumstances

ORAL JUDGMENT

MICHEL, J.A. [AG.]

1 This is a judgment of the Court. This is an appeal by a defendant against the decision of the magistrate, in which she found the defendant guilty of the offence of driving a motor vehicle on St. John's Public Road without due care and attention, contrary to section 5 of the Road Traffic Act. 1

2 Two witnesses were called by the prosecution in the case below, the investigating police officer and the owner of the rented car driven at the time by the appellant. None of the prosecution witnesses were witnesses to the incident giving rise to the charge against the appellant; they were only able to give evidence of what the appellant said had happened and what they saw in terms of damage to the vehicle and the path taken and damage caused by the vehicle after it left the St. John's Public Road.

3 At the conclusion of the prosecution's case, counsel for the appellant made a no case submission which the learned magistrate did not uphold. The appellant then gave evidence in his own defence.

4 The learned magistrate found the appellant guilty of the offence and fined him $120.00 in default of which payment he would serve one week in prison.

5 In her Reasons for Decision, the learned magistrate essentially ruled that what happened after the vehicle driven by the appellant left the St. John's Public Road convinced her that the appellant had driven the motor vehicle on the St. John's Public Road without due care and attention.

6 The appellant appealed against his conviction on four grounds: 2

• (i) That the decision is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.

• (ii) That the decision was erroneous in point of law.

...