Lopez et Al v Martinez

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Barrington-Jones, J.
• Judgment Date: 05 March 1980
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 19 and 20 of 1978
• Date: 05 March 1980

Supreme Court (Inferior Court)

Barrington-Jones, J.

Appeal No. 19 and 20 of 1978

Lopez et al

and

Martinez

Mr. B. Q. Pitts for the first appellant

Mr. W. P. Elrington for the second appellant

Mr. Quallo for the Crown/respondent

Crininal law - Appeal against sentences of fines and in default imprisonment for illegal entry and attempting to export shrimp — Appellants were Guatemalan nationals fishing in Belize waters — In the circumstances sentences not too severe — Appeals dismissed.

Barrington-Jones, J.

1 On the application of Mr. B.Q.A. Pitts (for the 1st appellant) and with the concurrence of Mr. W.P. Elrington (for the 2nd appellant) it was agreed that these two appeals be heard contemporaneously.

2 The two appellants were charged with:–

• (a) Illegal entry contrary to section 21(1) of the Immigration Ordinance; and

• (b) Attempting to export shrimp from Belize contrary to Section 5(a) of the Fisheries Ordinance as read with Section 5E of Ordinance No.2 of 1972 before the Magistrate, Toledo Judicial District, on the 30th May, 1978 when the Appellants were convicted in respect of both charges and sentenced to:–

• (a) Fined $200 in default 4 months hard labour, and

• (b) Fined $500 in default 6 months imprisonment such sentences to run consecutively.

3 The appellants were subsequently granted special leave to appeal against conviction and sentence on the 30th August, 1978; but at the hearing the grounds for appeal were limited to an appeal against sentence in that the sentences imposed were unduly severe.

4 The record in the court below is somewhat difficult to follow but it would appear that the appellants pleaded not guilty to the 1st charge although there is no record of any plea having been taken; and it appears that the appellants pleaded guilty to the second charge. It is also distressing to note that the second witness for the prosecution appears not to have been sworn before giving his evidence. Moreover there is nothing in the record to show that the appellants were given any opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses on the first charge.

5 However there is contained in the magistrate's reasons for decision (a document presumably prepared after the hearing and determination of the trial) the following statement:- “The defendants did not question neither of the two witnesses for the prosecution when given time to ask question ….”

6 Were it not for this annotation I would have concluded from the record that the appellants were not given any opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witnesses. It is, after all, a fundamental requirement that an accused has the opportunity to cross examine the Crown's witnesses,...