Miller v R

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Williams, Ag. J.)
• Judgment Date: 26 September 1997
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 26 September 1997

Grand Court

(Williams, Ag. J.)

MILLER

and

R.

P. Lamontagne, Q.C. and G.W. Hampson for the appellant;

A. Roberts, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.

Cases cited:

(1) Bertolino v. R., 1990-91 CILR 112.

(2) Bookers Stores Ltd. v. Mustapha AllyUNK(1972), 19 W.I.R. 230.

(3) R. v. Forbes(1865), 10 Cox, C.C. 362.

(4) R. v. MaxwellUNK(1909), 2 Cr. App. R. 26, applied.

Police-assault on police-knowledge of identity-knowledge that victim is police officer not necessary

Police-arrest-resisting arrest-knowledge that arrest being made by police officer not necessary

Police-arrest-resisting arrest-accused”s subsequent acquittal of offence for which arrested need not affect original lawfulness of arrest-may still be guilty of resisting arrest founded on officer”s reasonably held but mistaken suspicion

The appellant was charged in the Magistrate”s Court, George Town, with, inter alia, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer.

The appellant attended a noisy street party. When uniformed police stopped the party following a complaint and asked the crowd to disperse, a small group began to throw bottles at them. A policeman who was injured by breaking glass identified the appellant as the culprit and attempted to arrest him for disorderly conduct. The appellant resisted but was arrested with the assistance of other officers.

At the appellant”s trial a defence witness gave evidence that the appellant had thrown no bottle, that one of the people around him who were doing so may have resembled the appellant, that the police repeatedly identified themselves and told the crowd to go home, and that the appellant was grabbed by them, struggled, and was handcuffed and taken away. The magistrate convicted the appellant of resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty, but acquitted him of disorderly conduct.

On appeal against the convictions, the appellant submitted that (a) at the time it was alleged he had resisted arrest and assaulted the police officer, he had not been under lawful arrest since he had not been informed of why he was being arrested; (b) it was a necessary element of resisting arrest and of assaulting a police officer that the appellant be aware that the person restraining him was a police officer and that he was acting in the execution of his duty, neither of which had been apparent to him at the time; (c) since the Crown had relied on the officer”s claim that he had seen the appellant throw a bottle and since there had been no evidence at the trial to substantiate this, the magistrate”s decision to acquit him of disorderly conduct must have been based on the conclusion that the police had lied; and (d) therefore his resistance had been justified as

self defence, since the arresting officer had not had reasonable grounds to arrest him, and his convictions should be quashed.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The magistrate had properly ruled that the appellant”s arrest was lawful, since the evidence showed that the arresting officer had informed him of the reason for his arrest and had had reasonable grounds to suspect him of throwing a bottle. Accordingly, the appellant had properly been convicted of resisting arrest and of assaulting the officer, and it was not necessary for these purposes that the appellant should have known that his victim was a police officer or known that he was acting in the execution of his duty-although there was no reason for the appellant to have doubted either of these facts (page 437, lines 5–13; page 437, line 27 – page 438, line 8).

(2) Furthermore, it was not inconsistent for the magistrate to convict the appellant of these offences despite acquitting him of disorderly conduct, since this decision reflected the possibility that the police were mistaken about his involvement in the bottle-throwing, rather than that they were lying. The appeal would therefore be dismissed (page 437, lines 5–10; page 438, line 28 – page 439, line 21).

30	WILLIAMS, Ag. J.: The appellant was convicted by the Summary
Court of the following offences: resisting arrest, assaulting a police
officer and indecent behaviour but was acquitted of disorderly conduct.
On August 24th, 1994 what is commonly known as a ‘session’ was
held at Mary Street, George Town. The crowd spilled out on to the main
35	road. Loud music was being played and some of those who attended were
drinking beer from bottles which were on sale, although the premises
were not licensed premises.
Following a report a group of police officers, members of the Task
Force, arrived on the scene and requested the disc jockey to discontinue
40	the music. The disc jockey complied with their request and announced
over the loud speaker system that the police had requested that the music
be turned off. The police then asked the crowd to disperse. The police
started to leave and some members of the public started throwing bottles
in their direction. The police began walking towards the crowd in the
45	direction from which the bottles were being thrown, at the same time

telling the crowd to go home. There was a crowd of approximately 200
people.
Police Constable Donnelly said that he saw the appellant throw a bottle
in his direction, that it broke and that splinters from it actually hit him
5	causing injury. Donnelly said he attempted to arrest the appellant for
disorderly conduct but the appellant resisted and a struggle ensued.
However, with the assistance of other officers, the appellant was arrested
and taken to the police station, where he was detained.
The grounds of appeal

...