Ebanks v R

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Hercules, Ag. C.J.)
• Judgment Date: 19 February 1982
• Date: 19 February 1982
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)

Grand Court

(Hercules, Ag. C.J.)

D. EBANKS

and

R

S. McField for the appellant;

J. Furniss, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.

Cases cited:

(1) Belle v. Commr. of PoliceUNK(1972), 18 W.I.R. 1, distinguished.

(2) Practice Direction (Submission of No Case), [1962] 1 W.L.R. 227; [1962] 1 All E.R. 448, applied.

(3) Warner v. Metropolitan Police Commr., [1969] 2 A.C. 256; [1968] 2 All E.R. 356; (1968), 52 Cr. App. R. 373, dictum of Lord Morris applied.

Legislation construed:

Criminal Procedure Code (Law 13 of 1975), s.66: The relevant terms of this section are set out at page 249, lines 28–35.

Firearms-licensing-possession without licence-accused ‘in possession’ of unlicensed firearm if knowingly and willingly in control of it even if no actual knowledge that it is revolver

Criminal Procedure-prosecution case-case to answer-if prima facie case made out, accused has case to answer-prosecution evidence to be sufficient for reasonable tribunal to convict in absence of defence evidence

The appellant was charged in the Magistrate”s Court, George Town with possession of an unlicensed firearm.

The prosecution led evidence to show that the appellant had been in possession and control of a revolver, which he had thrown away in the presence of a police officer. The officer gave evidence of seeing the appellant throw away an object, seeing it hit a wall and retrieving the revolver which was the only object at that spot. When called upon for his defence, the appellant submitted that no case had been made out for him to answer and called no evidence. He was duly convicted of the offence.

On appeal, the appellant submitted that he should not have been called upon to answer the prosecution”s case because the evidence of his possession and control of the weapon was inadequate or, alternatively, contradictory; since no prima facie case of either actual or constructive possession had therefore been established, he should have been acquitted.

Held, dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction:

(1) The Crown had presented enough clear and cogent evidence to prove the appellant”s ‘possession’ of the revolver by establishing that e had been knowingly and willingly in control of the object that he had thrown away. It was not required to prove that he had actual knowledge that the object in his possession had been a revolver (page 250, lines 10–37).

(2) Accordingly, a strong prima facie case had been made out against the appellant, which was sufficient to require him to answer it, or to enable a reasonable tribunal to convict him in the absence of any evidence in his defence. Since he had called no such evidence, he had been properly convicted (page 251, lines 7–33).

HERCULES, Ag. C.J.: The facts in this case are so clear that I

need not go into them.

The evidence upon which the learned

...