Berry v R

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: Malone C.J.
• Judgment Date: 26 November 1990
• Date: 26 November 1990
• Docket Number: 111 of 1990
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)

Berry

and

Regina

Malone, C.J.

111 of 1990

Grand Court

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction and sentence — Speeding — Appellant's speed had been tracked by a speedometer — Whether the speedometer reading had been taken over a distance of at least 300 yards — Appeal allowed — Conviction quashed — Sentence set aside.

Appearances:

The appellant present – unrepresented.

Miss Wong for the Crown.

Malone C.J.

1 On the 7th March 1990 the appellant was driving his Nissan Sunny motor car along Spotts Road towards George Town. In the Prospect area he was stopped by the police and subsequently charged with speeding. Convicted of the offence charged, the appellant now appeals against his conviction and sentence.

2 In this case the appellant's speed was measured or assessed by the tracking method which, by section 63 (2) of the Traffic Law, requires the reading of a speedometer over a distance of at least 300 yards. The appellant does not question the method nor does he challenge the accuracy of the instruments used in the execution of the method. His challenges to the case of the Crown are that the speedometer reading relied on was taken over a distance of less than 300 yards and his speed was under 40 m.p.h.

3 The appellant's first sight of the police was in the vicinity of the Ocean Club. His evidence is that the police car was then ahead of him. He overtook it as it was travelling at less than 40 m.p.h. Reaching the Prospect bend he looked back and saw that the police car was behind him. At Terry's carpet place he noted that the police car had on its blue light and was gaining on him at a fast rate of speed. He pulled over by Ceito and stopped. Subsequently he measured from Terry's carpet place to where he stopped and found it to be 875 feet. His witness, Lloyd Ramsaran claimed to have measured a distance of 800 feet but the relevance of that measurement is not clear from the evidence.

4 The evidence of Inspector Ebanks is that he spotted the appellant's car in the vicinity of Mariner's Cove. He gave chase because of the speed at which it was travelling. His evidence continues as follows:

“On reaching the Prospect area I pulled sufficiently on the Nissan in order to be able to track it for a distance, at least 300 yards directly behind the car. I noticed that the speed in my speedometer was 65. The car in front was not moving away which caused me to estimate that the speed of car in front was same as my speed...