Contrebas v Rodriquez

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Court of Appeal (Belize)
• Judge: Staine, J.
• Judgment Date: 02 July 1974
• Neutral Citation: BZ 1974 CA 29
• Date: 02 July 1974

Court of Appeal

Staine, J.

Contrebas

and

Rodriquez

Mr. S.W. Musa for the appellant

Mr. M.C. Turton, Crown Counsel for the respondent

Criminal Law - Assault — Appeal against conviction and sentence

Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction — Sentence

Facts: Evidence of intoxication not considered by magistrate

Facts: First offence — Sentence of nine months for intentionally and unlawfully causing grievous harm extremely severe

Held: Evidence of intoxication not sufficiently weighty as to leave magistrate with a reasonable doubt as to the appellant's guilty intent — Appeal dismissed.

Held: Conviction upheld — Fine of $150.00 substituted.

Staine, J.

1 This is an appeal against a decision of the Inferior Court for the Cayo Judicial District whereby the Defendant/appellant was convicted of intentionally and unlawfully causing grievous harm to Erlindo Guerra. He was sentenced to nine months imprisonment with hard labour. The appeal is against conviction and sentence, and is brought on three grounds, namely –

• (1) that the decision was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence;

• (2) the decision was erroneous in point of law in that the state of intoxication of the appellant was not taken into account by the Magistrate for the purpose of determining whether the appellant had formed the requisite intention to commit the offence charged;

• (3) the sentence of the Court was unduly severe.

2 At the commencement of the hearing of the appeal Counsel for the appellant informed the Court that he would not argue the first ground of appeal set down.

3 Making his submissions Counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence clearly showed that the appellant has struck the victim with a bottle which broke. This occurred while they were engaged in a fight. There was no question of self defence. But argued Counsel, it was questionable whether the appellant had formed the necessary intent to commit the offence with which he was charged. One witness had stated that the appellant looked drunk at the time the blow was struck, and that being so it was incumbent on the Magistrate to probe the matter to see if the appellant had the capacity to form the necessary intent. It was not for the appellant to prove intoxication, but a matter which the presiding Magistrate should have taken into account in arriving at a decision whether the appellant was so intoxicated as to be incapable of forming the specific intent necessary to constitute the offence with which he was charged.

4 Counsel then referred to Archbold's Criminal Pleading and Practice, 37th Edition, paragraph 43 and argued that as soon as there was evidence suggesting intoxication, the Magistrate should consider whether it was to such a degree as to render the appellant incapable of forming the required intent. It could be that had the Magistrate considered the effect of intoxication on the appellant, it might be the Magistrate would of have considered the evidence weighty enough to warrant a conviction.

5 The appellant had given evidence at his trial and did not advert to the fight between himself and the victim. It appeared that because of this, the Magistrate concluded that the appellant was being evasive. But, argued Counsel it would also be that the appellant's state of intoxication was such that he was unaware or had no recollection of a fight having taken place between himself and the victim.

6 Furthermore submitted Counsel for the appellant the Magistrate had receive evidence from Doctor Gill that the appellant's act was intentional and as this was a question which the Magistrate himself had to decide, this evidence was wrongly received.

7 Finally, the appellant's Counsel submitted that the Magistrate's sentence was unduly served. This was the appellant's first conviction and the Magistrate had imposed a sentence of nine months' imprisonment. Justice would be best served by the imposition of a fine and possibly ordering compensation to be paid to the victim.

8 For the respondent it was argued that at the appellant's trial there were only two references to the...