Levanas v R

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: Schofield, J.
• Judgment Date: 20 September 1991
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Docket Number: 70 of 1990
• Date: 20 September 1991

Levanas

and

R.

Schofield, J.

70 of 1990

Grand Court

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Employing another person without a gainful occupation licence — Whether verdict supported by the weight of the evidence — Appeal allowed — Conviction quashed; sentence set aside.

For the appellant: Mr. G. Hampson

For the Crown: Mrs. Hernandez

Schofield, J.

1 Susan Y. Levanas appeals against her conviction in the Summary Court on a charge of employing another person without a gainful occupation licence, contrary to Section 30(2) of the Caymanian Protection Law, 1984.

2 At about 4:30 p.m. on the 25th September, 1990, three Immigration Officers went to the appellant's house off Walkers Road, George ‘Town. Of the three officers Franz Manderson and Wayne Foster testified. Manderson was the senior officer present. Inside the house the officers found Denise Randall together with two small children. When asked whether she was working at the house Ms. Randall said she was not but she had being doing some babysitting for the appellant. She denied being paid for her services.

3 Officer Manderson telephoned the appellant at her office at Cayman Airways. According to the officer's evidence the appellant admitted that Ms. Randall had been doing babysitting for her for the past five months and that she had paid her $25–30 for her services. Officer Manderson told the appellant she was committing an offence and the appellant returned to her house straight away.

4 The next morning at Officer Manderson's request, Ms. Randall presented herself to Immigration Headquarters, where she was interviewed by Officer Foster. During that interview, which was duly recorded, it is alleged that Ms. Randall admitted that the appellant paid her for babysitting services.

5 In the afternoon of the same day the appellant was interviewed by Officer Foster. She told him that Ms. Randall was a friend who would go over to her house to study in the afternoons. When she was there Ms. Randall would look after her children. The appellant said she had given Ms. Randall money to pay for food when she took the children to Burger King, but denied paying her for babysitting services.

6 And that was basically the appellant's defence. She may, she said, have given Ms. Randall money when Ms. Randall took the children out, but Ms. Randall was never paid for work done. She was a friend and went to the house to study. It had been elicited in cross-examination of...