Ellis v Sutherland

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Staine, J.
• Judgment Date: 14 November 1979
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 6 of 1978
• Date: 14 November 1979

Supreme Court

Staine, J.

Appeal No. 6 of 1978

Ellis

and

Sutherland

Practice and procedure - No case submission — Police Constable charged with stealing — Finding that magistrate should not have upheld the no case submission.

1 The respondent, a police constable, was charged before the magistrate for the Stann Creek Judicial District on two counts of stealing.

2 At the conclusion of the case of the prosecution, a submission of no case to answer was made by counsel for the respondent. The magistrate thereupon upheld the submission and dismissed the charges against the respondent. From this dismissal, (the complainant) appellant now appeals, and the appeal is brought on two grounds:

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

• (2) that the magistrate erred in law in holding that he was unable to convict the respondent of the offence of receiving, because he had not been charged with the said offence.

3 At the hearing before the magistrate, the evidence against the respondent was in a fairly narrow compass, and the facts are not in such as to be in any manner of a nature calling for any special acumen.

4 The first witness, was a visitor from the United States of America who, deposed to arriving in Dangriga on the 9th February, 1978. He was traveling in a motor vehicle and was accompanied by a national of this country and a friend from the United States of America.

5 The evidence was that he parked his car at the pier in Dangriga and then went to sleep inside a house at the end of the pier, having first secured the car and its contents. At the time the car was secured, the visitor had left in the car some cash amounting to some $80 US and a camera which was inside the glove compartment of the car. Other things were said to be inside the trunk of the car.

6 Sometime in the early hours of morning, the visitor was awakened by the respondent who was dressed in police uniform, and who told the visitor that he could not remain there sleeping and had to move on. Whereupon, the visitor hurriedly got into his car and drove to the airstrip some 8 miles outside of Dangriga, but not before noticing that his car had been rummaged and there were things scattered about. The visitor and his friends having arrived at the airstrip shortly after 3:00 a.m. went to sleep, and on awakening later that morning returned to the pier in Dangriga, and then in the light of daylight began to make a search of the car. He then discovered that his camera case was in the car and half under the seat, but the camera itself was missing, as was an unused roll of film, which, apparently, was already loaded in the camera. Some money was also missing.

7 The visitor, according to the evidence, later that morning reported the matter to the police, and at the hearing of the case identified a camera as being the one that he had lost.

8 The visitor's friend also a citizen of the United States of America similarly discovered on returning to the pier that his camera was missing, and in like manner, made a report to the Police. Again at the hearing the missing camera was produced and identified by the owner.

9 It is worthy of note that both these two persons who gave evidence at the trial identified the respondent as the person who had, so to speak, caused them to remove from the town pier and also said he was partly dressed in police uniform at the time.

10 The respondent at the trial did not ask any questions of these two witnesses.

11 There was also evidence that the respondent had on the morning of February 9th taken photographs of his fellow constable's children with a camera which was identified at the trial. There was evidence also that the respondent had been on duty on the night of the 8th and 9th February and had in the course of that duty, around about 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. of the 9th February, left the police station in Dangriga on a bicycle, saying that he was going to patrol. So it seems that the question of identification was not a factor which created any doubt in the mind of the magistrate.

12 The respondent was present...