Espat v Tillett

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Court of Appeal (Belize)
• Judge: Malone, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 09 April 1977
• Neutral Citation: BZ 1977 CA 5
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1977
• Date: 09 April 1977

Supreme Court

Malone, C.J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1977

Espat

and

Tillett

Senator S.W. Musa for the Appellant

Miss C. Pitts for the Defendant

Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction — Assault

Practice and Procedure - Courts — Magistrate's Court

Facts: Magistrate convicted appellant of throwing a missile to the danger of a named person — Magistrate's notes of proceedings stated that he should have dismissed the case — Evidence disclosed that magistrate recited facts but failed to make a finding on those facts

Facts: Magistrate stated reasons for decision — Reasons disclosing that magistrate recited facts of case without making a finding on those facts — Court of appeal unable to confirm or set aside conviction — Duty of magistrate to express his findings of fact and his reasons for the finding of facts that he makes

Held: Appeal allowed — Case remitted to inferior court for re-hearing and re-determination by another magistrate.

Held: Appeal allowed.

1 Before the Honourable Chief Justice

JUDGEMENT

2 The appellant is a shop-keeper of San Ignacio. He pleaded not guilty to the minor offence of throwing a missile to the danger of one Domingo Cruz Jr., but was found guilty. From that conviction he has appealed on the ground that the verdict was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.

3 The magistrate by whom the appellant was convicted had only to decide a very simple issue of fact. Namely had the prosecution satisfied him so he could feel sure that the appellant had thrown a bottle so as to endanger Domingo Cruz Jr.? It can only supposed that at the time of the trial the magistrate felt sure as to that as he convicted the appellant. When later the magistrate gave his reasons, however, he wrote:

“I now feel after carefully reading over the evidence that I should have dismissed this case. There is a conflict in the evidence but the main and important point the law. The Sec. 4(1)(xv) of Chap. 23 reads: ‘wantonly throws or discharges any stone or other missile to the damage or danger of any person, or glass or window, tiles, shingles or slate’. The first witness and complainant stated inter alia when we were passing defendant's store, defendant came out of his store and threw a pint at us to danger of people travelling in Pick-up. (A charger pint green). The pint bottle luckily didn't catch anybody. As the pint bottle didn't catch anybody and there were several persons in...