R v D Ebanks

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Schofield, J.)
• Judgment Date: 20 January 1993
• Date: 20 January 1993
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)

Grand Court

(Schofield, J.)

R.

and

D. EBANKS and S. EBANKS

I. Archie, Crown Counsel and A. Roberts, Crown Counsel, for the Crown;

R.N.A. Henriques, Q.C. and D. Nicol for the first defendant;

Mrs. P. Levers and G. Hampson for the second defendant.

Cases cited:

(1) Hollington v. F. Hewthorn & Co. Ltd., [1943] K.B. 587; [1943] 2 All E.R. 35, followed.

(2) Hunter v. Chief Constable of W. Midlands Police, [1982] A.C. 529; [1981] 3 All E.R. 727, observations of Lord Diplock considered.

Legislation construed:

Evidence Law, 1978 (Law 13 of 1978), s.12:

‘Proclamations, treaties and other acts of state or of any foreign state . . . and judgments, decrees, orders and judicial proceedings of any Court of any such foreign state . . . and affidavits, pleadings and other legal documents filed in any such court may be proved in any court, either by examined copies, or by copies authenticated as hereinafter mentioned, that is to say, if the document sought to be proved be . . . a judgment, decree, order or other judicial proceeding of any foreign . . . court, or an affidavit, pleading or other legal document filed or deposited in any such court, the authenticated copy, to be admissible in evidence, must purport either to be sealed with the seal of the court to which the document belongs or, in the event of such court having no seal, to be signed by a judge of such court. . . .’

Misuse of Drugs Law (Second Revision) (Law 13 of 1973), s. 16O as added by Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Law, 1989 (Law 3 of 1989), s.4:

‘(1) Subject to subsection (3), any person who, after the date of the coming into operation of this Law, enters into or is otherwise concerned in an arrangement whereby-

(a) the retention or control by or on behalf of any other person, in this section referred to as “A”, of proceeds of drug trafficking is facilitated (whether by concealment, removal from the jurisdiction, transfer to nominees or otherwise); or

(b) “A””s proceeds of drug trafficking are used-

(i) to secure that funds are placed at “A””s disposal; or

(ii) for “A””s benefit to acquire property by way of investment,

knowing or believing that “A” is a person who carries on or has carried on drug trafficking or has at any time received any payment or other reward in connection with drug trafficking carried on by him or another, is guilty of an offence.’

Evidence-documentary evidence-judicial documents-Evidence Law, 1978, s.12 no authority for admitting judgment, indictment and plea agreement in foreign proceedings-concerns admissibility of copies of documents when originals already admissible

Evidence-previous convictions-previous conviction in foreign proceedings-judgment in personam not evidence of truth of decision or reasoning as between strangers or party and stranger-inadmissible as mere opinion of court in other proceedings

Evidence-documentary evidence-judicial documents-judgment, indictment and plea agreement in foreign prosecution of alleged accomplice not admissible against accused in Cayman proceedings-would create injustice as no cross-examination possible

The defendants were charged with drug trafficking offences contrary to s.16O of the Misuse of Drugs Law (Second Revision).

The defendants were directors of a company which the prosecution alleged was a front for the transfer of funds obtained from drug trafficking. Another director had been investigated both in the Cayman Islands and the United States for his involvement...