Re Austin et Al

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Moe, J.
• Judgment Date: 04 September 1981
• Docket Number: No. 228 of 1981
• Date: 04 September 1981

Supreme Court

Moe, J.

No. 228 of 1981

Re: Austin et al

Mrs. Lois Young Barrow for the Applicants

Mr. Glenford Quallo for the Respondent

Judicial review - Certiorari — Decision of magistrate ordering each appellant to deposit cash as security for prosecuting appeal — Whether the magistrate's requirement of $10,000 from each appellant was a judicial exercise of his power under the rules — Finding that the insistence of cash placed an unnecessary obstacle in the way of the appellants and was not a judicial exercise of the magistrate's powers — Certiorari issued.

Moe, J.

1 The applicants in this matter were on the 13th day of April 1981 convicted by a magistrate for the Belize Judicial District of the offence of possession of dangerous drugs contrary to section 5 (b) of the Dangerous Drug Ordinance CAP 85 and were each fined $10,000.00 respectively. The applicants gave verbal notice of appeal against sentence. That appeal not having been perfected an application for leave to appeal out of time was granted by the Supreme Court and on the 11th June, 1981 a fresh notice of appeal was given. The magistrate then ordered that the applicants each deposit the sum of $10,000.00 cash as security for prosecuting the appeal.

2 The applicants by these proceedings now seek an order of certiorari to remove the order of the magistrate into this court for the purpose of its being quashed. They seek this relief on two grounds:–

• (i) the magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction in that he ordered a cash deposit of $10,000.00 as security from each of the applicants; this order, they contend, is contrary to the requirements of Order 73 Rule 3 (3) and (4);

• (ii) the amount required as security is excessive for the order amounts to the imposition of a penal sum.

3 Order 73 Rule (3) of the Supreme Court Rules provides as follows: “The appellant shall within 21 days after the pronouncement of the decision give security before the Inferior Court in such amount as shall be required for the payment of any costs awarded against him by the court and for the due and faithful performance of the judgment or order of the court”.

4 Order 73 Rule (4) provides as follows:– “The security shall be by deposit of money with the clerk, or by a recognizance in Form 2 entered into by the appellant, with or without a surety or sureties to the satisfaction of the magistrate”. There is a proviso which need not be referred to.

5 By virtue of Rule 3 (3) the magistrate clearly has jurisdiction to determine the amount to be given as security. However under sub-rule (4), the security which is determined and required under sub-rule (3) is to be by deposit of money or by a recognizance with or without...