George Wesley Jefferson Appellant v The Queen Respondent

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: Henderson, J.
• Judgment Date: 28 May 2004
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2004] CIGC J0528-1
• Date: 28 May 2004
• Docket Number: S.C.A. #23/03
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)

Between:

George Wesley Jefferson

Appellant

and

The Queen

Respondent

Before:

Hon. Justice Henderson

S.C.A. #23/03

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

Appearances:

On behalf of the APPELLANT: Mr. Douglas Schofield of Appleby Spurling Hunter

On behalf of the RESPONDENT: Mr. Scott Wilson

Henderson, J.

1 The Appellant George Wesley Jefferson was convicted in Summary Court of the offence of being in possession of approximately two kilograms of cocaine with intent to supply; he was sentenced to imprisonment for 14 years. He says the learned Magistrate erred in law by failing to make any reference in her reasons for judgment to a statutory reverse onus provision.

2 The case against Mr. Jefferson was built almost entirely upon the evidence of an accomplice – Patrick Shannon Ebanks. Mr. Ebanks testified that he went with the Appellant and Deborah Jefferson, a cousin of Mr. Ebanks, to Cayman Brac on two occasions for the purpose of buying cocaine. On their second trip, the three conspirators purchased about two kilograms of cocaine and transported it to Grand Cayman for the purpose of reselling it there. The evidence of Mr. Ebanks described in detail an illegal plan in which all three people were fully involved.

3 If Mr. Ebanks was found to be telling the truth, there could be no question that each of the three conspirators had the requisite knowledge of the cocaine they were smuggling and the requisite intent that it be resold to other purchasers on Grand Cayman.

4 When a customs officer opened a bag Mr. Jefferson was carrying at the Grand Cayman airport, he found the cocaine hidden in a pair of pants. Mr. Ebanks testified that Deborah Jefferson had wrapped the cocaine up in these pants and placed it in the bag. He said Mr. Jefferson was present at the time, and the blue jeans were probably his.

5 Mr. Ebanks was cross-examined extensively. His credibility was challenged.

6 George Jefferson and Deborah Jefferson both gave evidence under oath in their defense. They denied the truth of what Mr. Ebanks was saying and testified, in essence, that it was Mr. Ebanks who purchased the cocaine and attempted to smuggle it through the airport on Grand Cayman for resale. Their case was that Mr. Ebanks told them he had buried the cocaine on Cayman Brac and would return later in a boat to pick it up; actually, he had secreted the cocaine in the bag, but George and Deborah Jefferson did not know that.

7 The learned Magistrate gave extensive reasons for judgment. Clearly, to convict Mr. Jefferson, the learned Magistrate would have to be sure that Mr. Ebanks was telling the truth and sure that Mr. Jefferson was not. In addition, she would have to be sure that Deborah Jefferson was lying.

8 The learned Magistrate warned herself correctly of the dangers of acting upon the evidence of an accomplice, which Mr. Ebanks clearly was, and of the need to treat his evidence with caution and to search for independent corroboration of it. She gave extensive reasons for coming to the conclusion that she was sure Mr. Ebanks was telling the truth and that George and Deborah Jefferson were lying.

9 On a prosecution of this sort, it is open to the Crown to rely upon a reverse onus provision in appropriate circumstances. That provision is found in section 9 of The Misuse of Drugs Law, and reads:

“9 (1) without prejudice to any other provision of this law …

(b) where it is proved...