Lynden Dwayne Walton v R
| Jurisdiction | Cayman Islands |
| Judge | Marlene Carter |
| Judgment Date | 06 April 2020 |
| Date | 06 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | SCA No: 0002/2020 |
| Court | Grand Court (Cayman Islands) |
Justice Marlene Carter (Actg.)
SCA No: 0002/2020
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
CRIMINAL SIDE
Criminal Law — s.32 of the Court of Appeal Law — Appeal against conviction — Magistrate's inferences from the evidence.
Mr. Keith Myers of Philip Ebanks Attorneys for the Appellant
Mr. Kenneth Ferguson for the Crown/Respondent
On August 5, 2019 at about 12:10 P.M. the Appellant was seen riding a bicycle and was apprehended by the Police in relation to an unrelated matter. A search was conducted under the Misuse of Drugs Law and a small Crest mouthwash bottle with contents resembling crack cocaine was found in the front pocket of his pants and which was later identified as over three hundred pieces of crack cocaine weighing 14.4g/0.5oz. He was also found with a substantial amount of cash — CI$1,330.00 — consisting of 13 $100.00 notes, 1 $25.00 note and 5 $1.00 notes.
The Appellant was subsequently charged with Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Supply, Possession of Cocaine simpliciter, Possession of Criminal Property and Failing to provide a specimen of urine for laboratory testing. He pleaded guilty to two of the charges: Possession of Cocaine and Failing to provide a specimen of urine for laboratory testing. A trial proceeded on the charges of Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Supply and Possession of Criminal Property charges.
At trial the Appellant's interview under caution, conducted on the day following his arrest, was admitted into evidence. During the interview the Appellant accepted that the Police Officer seized the cash from him and asserted that these monies were from his iguana culling exercise. He did not mention any other source of this funds and denied that the Police Officer took any crest bottle containing cocaine from him at the time.
Other salient aspects from the interview are summarized in the learned Magistrate's Notes of Evidence set out a paragraph 11(a)-(1) of her Judgment as follows:
-
“a) He was not shown the bottle of cocaine. Denied ever having the Crest bottle or seeing ii before.
-
b) He had not consumed cocaine in a while, not in the last week. But had within the last month of July.
-
c) Over the years he has spent a lot of money on cocaine.
-
d) He did not have any cocaine on him when slopped.
-
e) He had more than $1300 on him.
-
f) He gets paid every two weeks.
-
g) Last pay was two weeks ago and he receives $200 every two weeks for culling.
-
h) Since October of last year he collected a lot of money.
-
i) He had a truck which he used to do other work, but not anymore.
-
j) He does iguana culling now, or begs his mother.
-
k) “I am not selling cocaine. I didn't have no crack cocaine.”
-
I) “I use powder or crack, however I get it to get high.”
The Appellant first admitted possession of this cocaine at trial when he asserted that he had the drugs in his possession for personal use.
At trial, the Crown led evidence from the Deputy Director of the Department of Environment that between November 15, 2018 and August 1, 2019 the Appellant was paid by Cornwall Consulting in several tranches totaling $6,189.00. For the period June 2019 to the last payment on August 1, 2019 — four days before the Appellant was held — he received $755.00.
The Appellant also asserted at trial, for the first time, that some of the monies found on him were from payments that he had received from Foster's Food Fair for agricultural produce that he and his girlfriend had sold to Foster's and from the sale of a truck that he used to own that he had used to do landscaping jobs.
On November 14, 2019 the Appellant was found guilty of Possession with Intent to Supply and Possession of Criminal Property. The Appellant was sentenced to a period of 8 years' imprisonment for the Possession with Intent to Supply charge. In addition, $750.00 of the $1,330.00 seized was ordered forfeited as proceeds of criminal conduct.
The Appellant advanced two main grounds of appeal.
The first ground stated:
“The mere fact that the Appellant had a crest bottle with over 300 rocks, the total weight being that of 1/2 of an ounce of Cocaine base, is not evidence of any intent to sell any Cocaine.”
The first ground continued:
“The Appellant contends that in the circumstances of this case having taking (sic) the Appellant as a drug user who uses cocaine on a regular basis a 1/2 an ounce is not an amount that in the makeup of the Appellant is conducive with that of selling drugs.”
The second ground concerned the monies that were found to be Criminal property. It was submitted that the Appellant had “very little costs associated with everyday expenses as the Appellant was (sic) received State Aid for his rent. The Appellant (i) undertakes Iguana culling in many many locations (ii) Supplies Coconut water and other items to Fosters (Hi) and Landscape gardening.”
The argument was that he could legitimately have earned the monies that were found on him and, also, that “the Appellant had $1330 on him cash, that being 13 x $100 bills in a clip that could be locked down (wallet like) and $30 dollars in a money clip. … the $1330 was in large notes, not small notes that is akin to selling and receiving the cash from a drug deal.”
On this appeal the Appellant does not dispute the facts as found by the learned Magistrate but instead invites the court to find that the Magistrate did not draw the proper inferences from those facts which led to the conclusions that she made that the Crown had proved its case to the requisite standard.
The Learned Magistrate at paragraphs 20 and 21 of her Judgment clearly identified the issues in the case. She stated as follows:
“In this case there are two salient undisputed facts in relation to the arrest of the defendant by the police on an outstanding warrant:
a) He had a crest bottle with 300 rocks/crack cocaine in it with a weight of A ounce or 14.4 grams.
b) He had CI$1330 cash on his person.
The defendant's case is that the cocaine was all for his personal use, and that the cash was all from legal means.”
The Magistrate referred to the authority of Waldron v R 1 wherein the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal set out the following:
“…the grounds of appeal reduce to this: that the Chief Magistrate was not entitled to take the view, at the close of the prosecution case and from the evidence of the Crown alone, that she was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt (subject to any further matters which might be revealed If the appellant adduced evidence) that he was in possession of the drugs with an intent to supply. That could be said to raise two questions of law — although neither are in fact raised by the grounds of appeal: (a) whether it can ever be inferred from evidence as to the quantity of the drugs alone that possession is consistent only with an intent to supply; and (b) whether, If so, the quantity In this case was such that no magistrate, properly directing herself could draw that inference.
“The answer to the first of those questions is plainly “Yes, “It is impossible to hold that there could never be a case where the quantity of drugs (however large) did not compel the inference...
To continue reading
Request your trial