Williams v Mendez

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Dickson, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 29 November 1973
• Docket Number: Revisional Order No. 2 of 1973
• Date: 29 November 1973

Supreme Court

Dickson, C.J.

Revisional Order No. 2 of 1973

Williams

and

Mendez

Criminal Law - Evidence — Child of tender years

Facts: Sworn evidence — No examination of child by court

Held: Duty of court to satisfy itself that child understands nature and obligation of oath- Existence of evidence from defendant himself making conviction possible — Conviction upheld.

JUDGMENT:

1 The defendant Thomas Mendez a young man of about 20 years of age on the morning of 5th June, 1973, at about 8 a.m., saw a child Glenda Ferguson aged 11 years going to school together with her sister. Glenda had a bag which contained her school books; she was also carrying a purse in which were 5 pens, 2 pencils, 1 sharpener and 1 ruler. The defendant asked Glenda whether she needed any help with the bag containing her school books. The defendant grabbed the purse from Glenda, moved away sat down. About half-minute later he called her back to return the purse. Glenda did not go for it, but sent her sister instead. The defendant refused to hand over the purse to the complainant's sister. At about 9 a.m. the same day Glenda's mother received a telephone call to which she responded by setting out for the school. Whilst on her way to the school, the defendant came to Glenda's mother, offered her the purse and insisted that she accepts the purse, which apparently she did following the defendant's importunity. In his defence the defendant admitted that he had taken the purse from Glenda, but that as he put it, he was only playing.

2 The defendant was charged with stealing from the person contrary to section (c) of the Criminal Code, Chapter 21 The trial Magistrate at the conclusion of the evidence dismissed the charged of aggravated theft and doubtless purporting to act under section 58 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Ordinance, Chapter 24, convicted him of committing a mischievous act contrary to section 4 (1) (xx) of the Summary jurisdiction (Offences) Ordinance, the provisions of which read:

“4.-(1) Every person who-

……….. (xx) commits any wanton or mischievous act causing damage or annoyance not otherwise defined in this Ordinance, or … …

shall be guilty of a petty offence.”

Section 58 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Ordinance reads:

“58. Every complaint shall be deemed divisible, and if the commission of the offence charged, as described in the statute creating the offence, or as charged in the complaint,...