Eagan v R

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Court of Appeal (Belize)
• Judge: Inniss, P.,Georges, J.A.,Graham, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 19 June 1980
• Neutral Citation: BZ 1980 CA 3
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1980
• Date: 19 June 1980

Court of Appeal

Inniss, P.; Georges, J.A.; Graham, J.A.

Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1980

Eagan

and

Regina

Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction — Escape from lawful custody

Facts: Appellant convicted on charge of “Escape during time of his conveyance to or from prison”, contrary to s. 39(1) Prisons Ordinance Cap. 68. At time of escape appellant in attendance at a private eye clinic — Point of law raised whether appellant being conveyed to or from prison at time of his escape

Held: Words “Every Person who escapes … During the time of his conveyance to or from prison” should be read literally and did not include escape of a prisoner during the time when he had reached and was waiting in a private eye clinic — Appeal allowed — Conviction quashed.

JUDGMENT:

1 The appellant appeals against his conviction for escape to section 39(1) of the Prisons Ordinance, Chapter 68 of the Laws of Belize and also seeks leave to appeal against the sentence passed upon him in respect of the said crime, namely, six months imprisonment with hard labour to run consecutively with any sentence then being served by him.

2 The charged laid against the appellant in the indictment was in the following terms:–

“Charles Eagan, on the 18th day of November, 1977, at Belize City in the Central District of the Supreme Court, being a convicted prisoner undergoing a term of sentence at Belize City Prison, escaped during the time of his conveyance to or from that prison.”

3 The evidence, which in essence was not in dispute, was that on 26th October 1977, appellant was brought to the Belize City Prison on a commitment warrant issued by the Supreme Court of Belize ordering his imprisonment at hard labour for two years for receiving.

4 On 18th November, 1977, Principal Prison Officer, Norris Gillett, sent the appellant to Dr. Flores' eye clinic on Barrack Road, Belize City — a private clinic, where he had an appointment. He was escorted by one Harrison Jex Vernon, who was at that time a prison officer.

5 When they reached Dr. Flores' Eye Clinic, they had to wait awhile to have the lenses on appellant's eye glasses fixed. Appellant asked to go to the restroom. Vernon allowed him to do so and waited by the door of the restroom. At that moment he was called to the back to pick up the appellant's glasses. When he turned around he saw appellant going over a fence on the other side of the road. It was not until 5 November, 1979, that appellant was recaptured.

6 In view of the provisions of Rule 6(1) of the Indictment Rules set out in the first Schedule to the Indictable Procedure Ordinance, Chapter 22, ground 1 (as re-numbered) of the grounds of appeal, which related to duplicity in the indictment, was abandoned; and we need not discuss it.

7 Ground 2, as re-numbered, complained that the trial judge had erred in law in ruling at the close of the case for the prosecution that there was a case to answer.

8 The contention which had been advanced on behalf of appellant, as we understand it, was that the evidence did not support the charge as laid in the indictment, which said that appellant escaped during the time of his conveyance. It was submitted that when he moved off, appellant was not being conveyed anywhere. He was just at Dr. Flores' eye clinic.

9 It was argued on behalf of appellant that section 39 (1) of the Prisons Ordinance “showed” seven alternative ways in which a prisoner could commit the offence of escape:

• (1) if he escaped from prison

• (2) if he broke prison

• (3) if he escaped during the time of his conveyance to prison

• (4) if he escaped during the time of his conveyance from prison

• (5) if he escaped whilst on his way to work outside the prison

• (6) if he escaped whilst on his way from work outside the prison

• (7) if he escaped whilst employed on work outside the prison.

10 Of these, (1), (2) and (5) made provision for cases in which a prisoner escapes when not being conveyed. In addition, section 52 of the Prisons Ordinance provided for one more offence when the prisoner is not being conveyed. This is when he escapes from a public hospital.

11 Attention was directed to these last four provisions to show how the law deals with prisoners who escape while not being conveyed.

12 It was submitted that there was no provisions covering the case where a prisoner is not being conveyed but is in a private hospital or a private clinic.

13 Counsel for appellant conceded that if a prisoner had been put into a van to go to the prison, or if he had set off walking to the prison in the company of a prison officer he would be being conveyed to the prison. Likewise, if he had been placed in a van to be conveyed from the prison, or if he had set off walking from the prison in the company of a prison officer, he would be being conveyed from the prison.

14 Turning to the instant case, counsel contended that the appellant had reached the point when, being in Dr. Flores' private eye clinic, he was neither being conveyed from the prison nor to it.

15 In reply, the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Ghandi, submitted as we understood him, that the learned trial judge, acting in accordance with the provisions of section 4 (b) of the Criminal Code, had taken a broad view of section 39 (1) of the Prisons Ordinance.

16 With respect, we think that the trial judge went...