Christian v R

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: D. Schofield
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1991
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Docket Number: Supreme Court Appeal No. 9 of 1991
• Date: 01 January 1991

Christian

and

Regina

Schofield, J.

Supreme Court Appeal No. 9 of 1991

Grand Court

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Being an idle and disorderly person — Only one witness called for the prosecution — Whether magistrate attached sufficient weight to fact that no independent witness was called for the prosecution — Whether magistrate placed sufficient emphasis on the burden of proof on the prosecution — Appeal allowed — Conviction quashed; sentence set aside.

Appearances

Mr. Murray for the appellant

Mr. Archie for the Crown

1 D. Schofield Carson Nelson Christian appeals conviction in the Summary Court on a charge of being an idle and disorderly person, contrary to section 14G (e) of the Code. The particulars of the charge were that the appellant.

“On Friday 22nd June 1990, at Reef Point Restaurant, Breakers, Grand Cayman, a public place conducted himself in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peach.(

2 Police Constable Manley Berry had given evidence against the appellant in relation to a speeding allegation the day before the alleged incident. P.C. Berry's girlfriend is the sister fo the appellant's girlfriend. The appellant had previously alleged that P.C. Berry was harassing him and, indeed, repeated those allegations at hearing of this case. Whatever the truth of those allegations of harassment it is clear that the appellant alleges that P.C. Berry falsely accused him of speeding and the appellant is upset about the matter.

3 Unfortunately the two mere found themselves thrown together on the evening after the speeding charge was heard w1hen P.C. Berry went with his girlfriend to buy some fish and fritters at the Reef Point. Restaurant at Breakers. The appellant was sitting on a wall at the back of the Restaurant when Berry arrived.

4 According tar Berry he was placing his food order when the appellant asked him why he had come to Breakers when he had told lies in Court. The appellant told Berry to leave. The officer moved to the front of the restaurant and the appellant followed him and threatened harm to him if he did not leave. Berry went inside the restaurant where the appellant shouted obscenities at him. When the officer had received his food the appellant followed him outside and again uttered threats and obscenities to him.

5 The appellant testified that when P.C. Berry came to the back of the restaurant the officer stuck his tongue out at him. The appellant left him and went inside the restaurant and Berry came inside after him and was looking at him. The appellant asked the officer why he was looking at him after telling lies in court about him. The lady...