Andrews v Arthurs

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Alcantara, J.
• Judgment Date: 03 November 1981
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 8 of 1981
• Date: 03 November 1981

Inferior Court

Alcantara, J.

Appeal No. 8 of 1981

Andrews

and

Arthurs

Mr. H. Elrington for the appellant

Mr. G. Gandhi for the respondent

Criminal law - Appeal from Inferior Court against conviction and sentence — Section 4(1) (42) of the Summary Jurisdiction Ordinance, Cap. 23 — What constitute the offence of loitering contrary to section 4(1)(42) — Meaning of ‘Loitering’.

Alcantara, J.

1 This is an appeal from the Inferior Court for the Belize Judicial District. The appellant was convicted and sentenced on the 30th day of June 1981 by the learned Magistrate for the offence of loitering, contrary to section 4(1)(42) of the Summary Jurisdiction Ordinance, Chapter 23 of the Laws of Belize.

2 A fine of $40 and $1 cost was imposed.

3 From the said conviction the appellant now appeals to this court and his grounds of appeal are that:

• (1) The learned magistrate erred in law that he placed the burden of proof on the appellant/defendant.

• (2) The decision of the learned magistrate was against the weight of the evidence.

4 The particulars of offence before the learned magistrate were as follows:–

For that you the said Angel Andrews on the 18th day of March, 1981 at Belize City in the Belize Judicial District loitered on the Supreme Court steps situated on Regent Street and did not quietly move away when desired so to do by Cpl. No.5 George Arthurs.

5 I think it would be helpful to set out the provisions of section 4(l)(42) of the Summary Jurisdiction Ordinance before I review the evidence that was adduced in the court below. The provision reads:

“Every person who loiters or carouses in any street or public place or in any open space of ground in the immediate neighbourhood of such street or public place or in or about any shop or store and does not quietly leave or move away when desired so to do by any police constable or by the owner of such shop or store, shall be guilty of a petty offence.”

6 The facts of this are very simple and straight forward. On the morning of Wednesday, the 18th March, 1981, at about 10 a.m. the appellant was on the steps of the Supreme Court building reading what he described as a proclamation to a crowd of about 30 to 40 persons who were gathered round the steps. Cpl. Arthurs of the police force went up to him and asked him politely to move away quietly. The appellant refused and continued to read his proclamation. There was another request to move and another refusal. The appellant was thereupon arrested for loitering and taken to police station, where he was subsequently charged.

7 Counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was arrested before the police ascertained whether the appellant was lawfully or unlawfully on the steps of the Supreme Court. In other words the appellant might have had a licence to do what he was doing, but this was neither ascertained nor later proved in the Inferior Court. There was no duty on the appellant to prove that he had a licence or authority. The burden of proof is on the Crown.

8 Counsel for the Crown with his...