McKoy v Miguel

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Court of Appeal (Belize)
• Judge: Ross, J.
• Judgment Date: 05 June 1970
• Neutral Citation: BZ 1970 CA 6
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal
• Date: 05 June 1970

Court of Appeal

Ross, J.

Criminal Appeal

McKoy

and

Miguel

The appellant in person

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. A.L. Staine, for the Respondent

Criminal law - Appeal against Conviction — Assault

Facts: A magistrate found that the accused was guilty of assault as charged

Held: On appeal that finding was not against the weight of evidence. No evidence to justify the appellant's conduct has been laid before the Magistrate for consideration. The Magistrate's decision would be affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

1 Before the Puisne Judge

2 This appeal was heard on the 6th day of April, 1970, after three adjournments had been granted at the request of the appellant to enable him to obtain the services of Counsel; this, it appears, the appellant was unable to do and at the hearing the appellant appeared in person and made no further application for an adjournment.

3 This is an appeal against a decision of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction for the Belize Judicial District whereby the Defendant/Appellant Sheffield McKoy was convicted of the offence of intentionally and unlawfully causing wounds to Rudolph Lino contrary to section 74 of the Criminal Code, Chapter 21 of the Laws of British Honduras, Revised Edition, 1958, and sentenced to four months imprisonment at hard labour.

4 The appeal is brought on one ground: that the decision could not be supported having regard to the evidence. This is one of the grounds of appeal permitted by paragraph (h) of section 130 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Ordinance, Chapter 5 of the laws of British Honduras.

5 The appellant stated that his reason for appealing was because the Magistrate, Mr. Pitts, did not give him the opportunity to summon his two witnesses who were the two bartenders.

6 At this stage the Court pointed out that there was in the record a statement by the appellant to the Magistrate that he (appellant) had decided not to call witnesses; further, it was not a ground of appeal.

7 The appellant then reviewed briefly the evidence in the case before the Magistrate, and submitted that he was justified in acting as he did because Rudolph Lino had beaten him.

8 This was all that the appellant said in support of his appeal and the Court did not call on the learned Director of Public Prosecutions to reply.

9 The appellant was charged before the Magistrate with the offence of intentionally and unlawfully causing grievous harm to Rudolph Lino on the 1st day of February, 1968. At the trial the respondent, another police constable and Rudolph Lino gave evidence for the prosecution.

10 According to the evidence of Rudolph Lino: he, the appellant and another man were in a bar drinking on the day in question. There was a misunderstanding between the appellant and himself and they had a fight in the bar. The fight was stopped by the bartender and both the appellant and himself left the bar. Shortly after, while he Lino, was standing at a corner nearby, the appellant came up to...