Burns v Augustine

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Court of Appeal (Belize)
• Judge: Puisne
• Judgment Date: 11 January 1974
• Neutral Citation: BZ 1974 CA 1
• Date: 11 January 1974

Court of Appeal

Staine, J.

Burns

and

Augustine

The appellant in person.

Mr. E. L. Flowers, Crown Counsel, for the respondent.

Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction — Using threatening behaviour in a public place

Evidence - Admissibility

Facts: Appeal on ground (inter alia) that magistrate took extraneous matters into consideration — Necessary for appellant to show that the taking into consideration of extraneous matter caused magistrate to arrive at a decision he would not have arrived at but for the extraneous matter

Facts: Witness testified of receipt of letter — No indication from whom letter had come nor its contents — Whether letter admissible as evidence of threatening behaviour against accused/appellant — witness testified of alleged threatening behaviour of accused/appellant on certain date — Behaviour occurred after date of offence with which appellant charged — Whether an event which occurred after the date of offence for which appellant was charged was admissible in evidence against appellant — Appeal allowed

Held: Evidence of a highly prejudicial nature admitted and it may have influenced the magistrate since reasons for decision stated that magistrate considered all the evidence for both sides fully — Appeal allowed — Conviction quashed.

Held: (1) It is not enough for the appellant to show that the magistrate took extraneous matters into consideration; it must be shown that the taking into consideration of extraneous matter allowed the magistrate to arrive at a decision at which he would not have arrived but for the extraneous matter which he took into consideration. (2) Having admitted into evidence matters which were clearly inadmissible and highly prejudicial, it is reasonable to infer that they may have influenced the magistrate in his decision. It would therefore be unsafe, even dangerous to uphold the conviction in those circumstances. (3) However, it is not every case where extraneous matter has been received in evidence that the case will be affected. Every case will be decided on its merits.

1 Before the Puisne Judge.

2 This is an appeal against a decision of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction for the Belize Judicial District whereby the Defendant/ appellant Arthur Burns was convicted of using threatening behaviour in a public place to Delwith Retreage, contrary to section 4 (1) (xi) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Ordinance, Chapter 23 of Laws.

3 The Appeal is brought on three grounds, namely-

• (1) The Magistrate took extraneous matters into consideration.

• (2) The decision was erroneous in point of law.

• (3) The decision could not be supported having regard to the evidence.

4 At the commencement of the hearing the appellant gave notice that he would not proceed to argue the second ground of Appeal. He then proceeded to address himself to the first ground of Appeal, namely that the Magistrate took extraneous matter into consideration.

5 The appellant argued that the Magistrate had received evidence from the witness Delwith Retreage, that Retreage had received a letter through the mail but the witness did not say from whom the letter came or what the contents were. Nevertheless the witness was able to say it was because of the receipt of this letter that he considered the actions of the appellant in court a threat to him. The actions to which the fitness Retreage was referring was the alleged acts of the appellant in Court in August 1972 in pointing the index finger of his right hand at the witness and showing him his clenched fist.

6 The appellant also argued that the witness Retreage had given evidence at the trial in the Inferior Court that the appellant had threatened him on the 11th August, 972, while the appellant was on the verandah of appellant's home and the witness Retreage was passing. This, said the appellant was alleged to have occurred after the incident in court and had nothing to do with the incident alleged to have occurred in court.

7 As I understood the argument of the appellant, the presiding Magistrate should of have received these matters in evidence as they were extraneous to the offence with which the appellant was charged and this evidence was of mere prejudicial value.

8 Dealing with the third ground of appeal, namely, that the decision could not be supported having regard to the evidence, the appellant argued that the evidence was very conflicting. Sergeant Tillett had given evidence that the witness Retreage had complained to him in the morning and the prosecution had said the inside took place in the morning whereas in fact the incident had occurred in the afternoon.

9 The appellant also argued that there was conflicting evidence regarding the manner he is alleged to have held up his hand in court. The witness Retreage had said the appellant held up his right...