Evans v R

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: Schofield, J.
• Judgment Date: 18 May 1990
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Docket Number: 161 of 1989
• Date: 18 May 1990

Evans

and

Regina

Schofield, J.

161 of 1989

Grand Court

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction and sentence — Being concerned in the possession of cocaine — Sentence of 4 years imprisonment — Magistrate seeming to have penalised the appellant for pleading ‘not guilty’ and the nature of his defence — Appeal against conviction dismissed — Appeal against sentence allowed — Sentence reduced to 2 ¹/₂ years imprisonment.

Appearances:

Mr. John Furniss — for the appellant.

Ms. Lorna Dilbert — for the Crown.

JUDOMENT

Schofield, J.

1 There is no merit in the appeal against conviction. The appellant was adequately proved to be in the company of the supplier of this cocaine, Leslie Doig, on the four occasions Doig met Chief Inspector Burgess. Although he had no direct dealings with Chief Inspector Burgess the appellant admitted, in a recorded interview properly admitted at the hearing after a “trial within a trial”, that he knew Doig was supplying Burgess with cocaine and the reason why they went to meet Burgess was to supply him with that cocaine. The appellant also admitted that Doig had offered him $300.00 to go with him.

2 It is argued that the appellant's knowledge of Doig's possession of the cocaine does not make him concerned in its possession. The appellant was not in possession of the cocaine and at no time had any control of it. But the appellant is not charged with having possession of cocaine. He is charged with being concerned, i.e. being involved, in its possession and the prosecution did not set out to prove possession or control on the part of the appellant. To my mind there is no doubt that he was concerned and involved in the possession by Doig of the cocaine, which is sufficient to support the conviction.

3 The charge was that the appellant was concerned in the possession of cocaine. That the learned Magistrate made an error in his judgment in reciting the charge as being concerned in possession of cocaine with intent to supply does not affect the validity of the conviction. The most that can be said is that the Magistrate may have put the prosecution to proof of an extra ingredient i.e. an intent to supply. If the Magistrate was looking for that extra ingredient it does not detract from his findings that the appellant was concerned in possession. He made findings, correctly in my view, on those ingredients necessary to support a conviction for the offence with which the appellant was charged.

...