Daniel Ezra Meeks v HM the Queen
| Jurisdiction | Cayman Islands |
| Judge | Goldring J |
| Judgment Date | 30 April 2021 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Cayman Islands) |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL APPEAL 9/2020 SC#02745/2018 |
The Rt. Hon Sir John Goldring, President
The Hon John Martin QC, Justice of Appeal
The Sir Richard Field, Justice of Appeal
CRIMINAL APPEAL 9/2020
IND. 010/2019
SC#02745/2018
IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL
Ms Margeta Facey-Clarke, Attorney for Appellant
Ms Candia James-Malcom of the DPP for the Respondent
Transcript of oral judgment dated 30 th April, 2021 and Approved for Release 25 th June 2021
Goldring J, President
On the 11th of February 2020, the Applicant was convicted by Acting Justice Dobbs of one count of misconduct in public office. The words of the indictment make the essence of the allegation clear. They state:
“ Daniel Ezra Meeks, between the 9th day of November 2017 and the 28th day of November 2017, within the jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands, being a public officer, namely a Police Constable of the Royal Cayman Islands Police Service, without reasonable justification and excuse, wilfully misconducted himself in office to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust, by using his position as a police [officer] to convince Vernice Johnson to execute a transfer of land belonging to her into his name, and subsequently registered that land into his name.”
The Applicant was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.
Miss Johnson was 73 at the time of the trial. She lived at 244 Palm Dale in a house which she owns. Also living there was her daughter, Sasha. Sasha's son Hubert, who is autistic, lives in a care home. Miss Johnson had left school when she was nine. She has very limited reading and writing skills. Sasha has mental health problems which sometimes lead to violence and the police having to be called.
There was an incident on the 10th of November 2017. The police were called. The Applicant was one of the two officers who attended. He did so twice that day. On the first visit, Miss Johnson told him she did not have a mobile phone that Sasha had broken it, and she could not afford to replace it. On the second visit, Sasha was arrested and taken into custody. The Applicant said he would let Miss Johnson have a spare mobile phone which he had at home.
On the 12th of November, the Applicant called again. He was not in uniform. The judge summarised Miss Johnson's evidence in chief about these events in the following way (paragraphs 17 and 18 of the judgment):
“ Miss Johnson explained how the Defendant returned the following day in civilian clothes. He had bought a phone to replace her broken phone as he said she seemed such a nice lady. He got into a conversation with Miss Johnson and told her he was looking for someone to ‘stand responsible’ for him to get an apartment. Miss Johnson replied that at her age she could not do something like that. The Defendant replied that he was not a thief. He had two sick children and where he lived was so small. She said she couldn't help him. He persisted. She understood that he wanted her to put his name on her land papers so he could take them to the bank. He had some papers with him and he told her to sign them. She told him that she did not know what she was doing and what she was signing. She didn't know why she signed it. She was scared because she was alone and because she could not read. At this stage of her evidence, Miss Johnson became very distressed.
Miss Johnson said that she told the Defendant about the problems with her daughter; that her daughter had an autistic son Hubert who was in a care home and that she would … leave the house for her grandson; also, that she was widowed and by herself.”
The Applicant called again on the 13th of November. He had not been invited. He brought some fruits and water for Miss Johnson.
So it was that on the 16th of November the Applicant collected Miss Johnson from her home. He was to take her to see Mr McKoy, a justice of the peace seemingly selected by Mrs Meeks. The transfer documents having been completed, all that was required to transfer half of Miss Johnson's home to Mr Meeks, was her signature (and that of the Applicant) witnessed Mr McKoy. Mr McKoy said he understood from Mrs Meeks that Miss Johnson was the Applicant's mother-in-law: in other words, that this was an arrangement between family members. Produced for Mr McKoy were the completed documents authorising transfer. Both the Applicant and Miss Johnson told Mr McKoy they understood the documents. Mr McKoy did not ask Miss Johnson whether she could read. He said that she produced a passport as identification, something which she disputed. Mr McKoy said there was a brief conversation about transfer fees. He recommended seeing an attorney. That was because the transfer fees could be waived when the transfer was between family members. Mr McKoy said the Applicant said he had an attorney whom he would consult. The Applicant disputed it was ever suggested that Miss Johnson was his mother-in-law. He necessarily disputed Mr Mckoy's account of the conversation. Unsurprisingly, the Applicant never saw an attorney in respect of the transaction at any stage.
Miss Johnson said she was subsequently concerned about what had happened. She could not sleep at night. She did not know whether she had done something wrong by signing the papers.
On the 17th of November, the Applicant submitted the notarised documents to the Lands and Survey Department. The transaction was processed subject to the payment of stamp duty fees.
So it was that within seven days of first meeting Miss Johnson, the Applicant, subject to the payment of the duty fees, was half owner of her home.
Sasha learned of the transaction. She was not pleased. On the 24th of November, she called the police and made a report regarding the Applicant's actions.
On the 26th of November, Miss Johnson told the police what had happened. The next day the Lands and Survey Department was contacted about having the transaction cancelled. Miss Johnson took a letter of withdrawal to the department. Before doing so, she had been to her former bank to ask what she should do.
At paragraph 25 of her judgment, the judge encapsulated Miss Johnson's account:
“She [Ms Johnson] never made on offer to the Defendant to transfer half the property to him. She hadn't really understood that by signing the document she was actually transferring half the property to the Defendant. She was not signing voluntarily. She was very nervous and did not know exactly what she was doing. The Defendant had asked repeatedly for assistance on a number of occasions. Eventually she signed the documents because she was scared of him, living as she was on her own. She said that she still doesn't understand what all the documents mean and what happened. She did not intend the Defendant to be part owner of her house. She felt very sad that she had worked very hard all her life for her home. She would never willingly pass it over to a stranger”.
At paragraph 29 the judge said:
“ She [Miss Johnson] explained that initially she was not scared of the Defendant. However, with each visit she became more scared, but went along with what he wanted. She was very scared by the time they went to the Notary Public as she didn't know what was happening”.
At no time did the Applicant inform anyone in the Royal Cayman Islands Police, or in authority, about what had happened.
There was a subsequent investigation by the Professional Standards Unit (“PSU”) of the Cayman Islands Police into what had happened. On the 12th of December 2017, the Applicant submitted his account (the “Duty Report”) to the PSU. It is his case he was directed to do so. It was the Respondent's case that the report was voluntarily made. He was, it is clear, never interviewed under caution. This is a topic to which we shall return.
On the 9th of January 2018, the investigation by the PSU having taken place, and by then not having had his contract of employment with the Cayman Islands Police renewed, the Applicant emailed the Lands and Survey Department. He requested that his withdrawal of the application for transfer which he had made on the 27th of November 2017 be ignored and sought to have the transfer reinstated.
At the close of the prosecution, a submission of no case based on the second limb of Galbraith was made. The judge rejected it. In short, she found that if Miss Johnson's evidence were accepted, there was ample evidence for a reasonable tribunal of fact to convict. As she put it, the case was “ far from being in the territory of being so vague and tenuous that no tribunal could convict.” Again, this is a topic to which we shall return.
The Applicant gave evidence. In summary, it was his account that he was a compassionate man doing all he could to help Miss Johnson. She wanted someone honest to take care of the house for her autistic grandson Hubert. Miss Johnson was concerned that Sasha would sell the house. She was looking for someone like Mr Meeks to help her. The arrangement was agreed before he met Hubert. He spoke of subsequently meeting Hubert and getting on with him. In examination in chief and cross-examination, the Applicant was adamant that it was Miss Johnson's suggestion that she transfer half of the property to him. However, his attention was drawn to what he had said in his Duty Report, namely that:
“I told [Miss Johnson] my wife and I are seeking to purchase a property, so instead of doing a will she could add me as a co-owner which would [leave] me to do what she desired for Hubert.”
He then agreed that the suggestion to transfer the property was his, albeit for motives of compassion. He said he had made a mistake in his earlier account in evidence. He described a happy and...
To continue reading
Request your trial