Alamilla and Tillett v Sargeant and Massiah

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Court of Appeal (Belize)
• Judge: Dickson, J
• Judgment Date: 08 March 1974
• Neutral Citation: BZ 1974 CA 13
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 72
• Date: 08 March 1974

Court of Appeal

Dickson, C.J.

Criminal Appeal No. 72

Alamilla and Tillett

and

Sargeant and Massiah

Appearances:

D. Lindo for appellants

K. Ratnesser for Crown, E.L. Flowers with him

Criminal Law - Sentence — Possession of antiquities

Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction — Unlawful possession of antiques

Facts: Sentence of imprisonment and a fine imposed on each appellant — Serious offence

Facts: Ample evidence before magistrate to establish possession — Appellants challenging conviction and sentence — Necessity for appellants to show court that possession was lawful from moment antiquity was found — Ample evidence of concealment

Held: Sentence too severe — No evidence that offence was prevalent — Appeal allowed — Sentences varied.

Held: Appeals against conviction dismissed.

Dickson, J

1 The appellants were jointly charged before a magistrate sitting in the Belize Judicial District on a complaint (as amended) which reads:

“……… that Lacelle Tillett and George Alamilla committed the offence of possession of antiquities, contrary to section 5(1) of the Ancient Monuments and Antiquities Ordinance No. 22 of 1971.

For, that the said Lacelle Tillett and George Allamilla (sic) between the 2nd and 4th day of May, 1973 between miles 4 and 5 on the Western Highway in the Belize Judicial District had in their possession antiquities for which they had not been granted a licence in writing by the Ministry of Trade and Industry.”

2 Both appellants were on 18th June, 1973, convicted of the offence as charged, and each was fined $1,000 and in addition a custodial sentence of six weeks' imprisonment with hard labour. It was also ordered that in default of payment of the fine, each appellant would serve twelve months imprisonment with hard labour. An order for forfeiture of the antiquities was made.

3 At the close of the prosecution's case, Mr. Lindo for the defence told the learned magistrate that the defendants do not wish to give evidence, and witnesses were not being called. In the original grounds of appeal it is stated:

• “1. The decision could not be supported having regard to the evidence.

• 2. There was not sufficient evidence to support the charge.

• 3. The decision was erroneous in point of law inasmuch as the magistrate did not treat the witness Diamond Rudon as an accomplice.

• 4. The sentence was too severe.”

4 Leave was sought at the hearing of the appeal to amend the original grounds. The application was granted. The application reads as follows:

“For the deletion of the whole of paragraph 3 thereof and the substitution therefor of the following new paragraph-

3. The decision was erroneous in point of law inasmuch as the magistrate did not:

• (i) treat the witness Diamond Rudon as an accomplice; and

• (ii) advert to s. 6(2) of Ordinance No. 22 of 1971 which allows any person fifteen days to register the possession, custody or control of an ancient monument or antiquity with the Minister.”

5 Briefly the evidence adduced before the magistrate shows that on a date in April, 1973 the Appellant Alamilla visited the Palms Motel 2 ¹/₂ miles on the Western Highway which Mr. Mario Pariente had taken over as Manager on 18th April. Mr. Pariente had known Mr. Allamilla for some eight years. During the Holy Week of the Easter, Mr. AlamilIa paid his first visit to the Motel after Mr. Pariente assumed the duties of Manager. Mr. Allamilla inquired who was the new owner, and Mr. Pariente told him he was. On 27th April, Mr. Allamilla visited Mr. Pariente at the Motel for the second time. Mr. Alamilla told Mr. Pariente that one Hulihan “Has got something at the Palms for him”, and that he brought two guys along with him to get it. Mr. Pariente asked him what it was; and Mr. AlamilIa replied that they were some “Stones carvings”. Mr. Pariente questioned Mr. Alamilla about the carving after the latter had asked permission to get it out. Alamilla said it was a stela, Alamilla told him “it was some artifact”. Mr. Alamilla on this visit was accompanied by the appellant Tillett whom Mr. Pariente had known by his face and his sobriquet Spoodle. There was also a third person with both appellants. Mr. Pariente told Alamilla that he did not want any problems at the Motel. The later told him that there would he no problems for him, Mr. Pariente or the Palms Motel. Alamilla stayed in the bar of the Motel and Tillett and the other fellow went outside; a little after Alamilla went out too, as Pariente says “to see if they had taken the stuff out”. Alamilla returned and told Pariente that they had already got it out. Alamilla had told Pariente as he put it, that the stuff was buried. Pariente said as Manager he went out and checked where they were digging and he observed that Tillett and the other person were digging underneath room 16. Mr. Pariente said he saw a piece of stone which looked like a dried bag of cement, and was about 2” in length and 1” wide.

6 Mr. Diamond Rudon who lives at 4 ¹/₂ miles on the Western Highway and works as a Captain at the Survey Department says that some time in April, 1973, Alamilla, Tillett and another man came to his place to buy mangoes for 25¢. He was given a one dollar bill and paraphrasing the evidence told to keep the change. Mr. Alamilla told him: “I will...