Parchue v R

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Court of Appeal (Belize)
• Judge: Bourke, P.,Archer, J.A.,Hogan, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 05 June 1970
• Neutral Citation: BZ 1970 CA 2
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1970
• Date: 05 June 1970

Court of Appeal

Bourke, P.; Archer, J.A.; Hogan, J.A.

Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1970

Parchue

and

Regina

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Extortion

Statute - Construction — Meaning of “Public Officer”

Facts: Points of law raised on the appeal were whether as a Police Constable the appellant could properly be regarded as a “Public Officer” within the meaning of The Criminal Code, section 315, under which he was charged and convicted and whether section 341 of the Criminal Code expressly required for the purposes of a valid charge that the money was “corruptly” alleged by the accused to be due as a fee or a legitimate payment

Facts: The question was whether a Police Constable could properly be regarded as a “Public Officer” within the meaning of section 315, Criminal Code

Held: (i) A police constable held a civil office within section 330 of the Criminal Code and was a “Public Officer” for the purposes of section 315; (ii) s. 341 did not expressly require that the money was “corruptly” alleged to be due as a fee or a legitimate payment; there was therefore no defect in the form of charge, or directions given on it by trial judge to Jury. Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.

Held: The term “Public Officer” was defined under s. 330 of the Criminal Code and the Police Constable was a “Public Officer” for the purposes of section 315.

1 The appellant, Evangelisto Parchue, was convicted on the verdict of a jury of the crime of extortion contrary to S. 315 of the Criminal Code, and was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment at hard labour. The particulars as given in the indictment are that the appellant — “being a public officer, namely a Police Constable, extorted from Carl Murrill in respect of his the said Evangelisto Parchue's duty as a public officer the sum of $400.00 by obtaining under cover of his said office from the said Carl Murrill the said sum of $400.00 which said sum he knew that he was not authorised to obtain from the said Carl Murrill”.

2 It is not a ground of appeal that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Appellant was a Police Constable at the material time. The appellant furthermore in his statement to the Police, exhibit V.G.I, and in his unsworn statement from the dock admitted that he was a Police Constable. It has again been stated by Counsel for the appellant before this Court that there was never any dispute about the fact that he held such post as a member of the Police Force; but the question being raised was whether as a Police Constable he could properly be regarded as a “public officer” within the meaning of section 315 of the Criminal Code under which he was charged and convicted. It was the direction of the trial Judge to the jury as a matter of law that as a Police Constable, if such was the finding of fact on the evidence, the appellant was a public officer for the purposes of the charge.

3 The circumstances shortly are that the appellant visited the complainant Carl Murrill, an old man of 76 years of age, and accused him of having bought a stolen radio. The Constable, that is, the appellant, said that he would search Murrill's house until he found the radio and that he, Murrill, was just as guilty as the man who had stolen the property. The atmosphere of menace thus engendered was augmented by the production by the appellant of a police investigation file from his pocket in which he began to write. Mr. Murrill was getting ready to go to the Police Station when the appellant stopped writing and said, “Mr. Murrill, you are a business man and it would be very embarrassing for you to go to court and be accused of having stolen property”. He also said, “It is very cold in the Police Station and if you don't do something about it, I will take you to the Station”. Mr. Murrill said- “What can I do?” There was no reply. Murrill then said, “Would $200 satisfy you?” The appellant replied, “No that is not enough”. Murrill then asked if $400 was enough to satisfy. After some hesitation the appellant replied, “Yes, l will accept the $400”. He then took $100 in cash and $300 by cheque and set fire to the investigation file, telling Murrill that there would be no further investigation regarding the radio. It is evident that the jury were satisfied that the appellant's actions and words as a policeman and his obtaining of the money amounted to extortion.

4 As to the grounds of appeal, there is no allegation of misdirection on the facts. The objections are taken on points of law. First, it is argued that no offence was made out...