R v Eldermire

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Sanderson, J.)
• Judgment Date: 20 April 2000
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 20 April 2000

Grand Court

(Sanderson, J.)

R.

and

ELDERMIRE

A. Roberts, Senior Crown Counsel, for the Crown;

J.H. Furniss as amicus curiae.

Case cited:

(1) -Gayle v. R., Grand Ct., S.C.A. No. 20 of 1999; on appeal, 1999 CILR N–5, followed.

Legislation construed:

Criminal Procedure Code (1995 Revision) (Law 13 of 1975, revised 1995), s.77: The relevant terms of this section are set out at page 99, lines 21–26.

Misuse of Drugs Law (1999 Revision) (Law 13 of 1973, revised 1999), s.49: The relevant terms of this section are set out at page 99, lines 23–39.

Criminal Procedure-institution of proceedings-time-limit for summary prosecution-charge relating to summary drugs offence must be laid within six months of competent complainant learning of evidence justifying prosecution (Criminal Procedure Code (1995 Revision), s.77) or within three months of Attorney General learning of same (Misuse of Drugs Law (1999 Revision), s.49), whichever is longer

Criminal Procedure-institution of proceedings-time-limit for summary prosecution-‘evidence sufficient to justify proceedings’ in Criminal Procedure Code (1995 Revision), s.77 need not satisfy criminal standard of proof-charges may be laid once reasonable cause to believe offence committed, provided proof available in court

The accused was charged in the Magistrate”s Court with possession of ganja.

The accused, an inmate of Northward Prison, was found in possession of a large number of packets of vegetable matter resembling ganja. He claimed he had nothing to hide but did not confirm or deny the nature of the substance. Four months later the Government Chemist produced a certificate of analysis, on the basis of which the Crown decided, when receiving the file a further two months later, that there was sufficient evidence to charge the accused. In fact no charge was laid until 10 months after the seizure of the packets. The Magistrate”s Court ruled that the proceedings had not been commenced in time and dismissed the charge.

On appeal the Crown submitted that (a) under s.49 of the Misuse of Drugs Law (1999 Revision), as read with s.77 of the Criminal Procedure Code (1995 Revision), it had had six months from the date when sufficient evidence came before it and it decided to prosecute in which to

charge the accused; and (b) alternatively, the six-month period specified in s.77 had begun to run when the certificate of analysis was issued confirming the identity of the substance.

The amicus curiae submitted that (a) on the proper construction of s.49, the Crown had had only three months within which to charge the accused when the accused”s file was passed to the Legal Department, since the six-month limitation period referred to in s.77 ran from the date on which a competent complainant received evidence sufficient to justify criminal proceedings, whereas a three-month period operated from the date on which the Attorney General became aware of evidence justifying a prosecution; (b) nor had the six-month period begun to run when the certificate of analysis was issued, since criminal proceedings could have been commenced purely on the basis of the circumstances of the discovery of the drugs.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

Since the Crown had been obliged to charge the accused within the longer period of either (i) six months from the date on which evidence sufficient to justify proceedings came to the knowledge of a competent complainant (under the Criminal Procedure Code (1995 Revision), s.77), or (ii) three months from the date on which evidence sufficient to justify a prosecution had come to the knowledge of...