Andrew v Murrell

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Lewis, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 21 January 1970
• Neutral Citation: LC 1970 CA 1
• Date: 21 January 1970
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No: 10 of 1969

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J.; Gordon, J.A.; St. Bernard, J.A. (Ag.)

Criminal Appeal No: 10 of 1969

Andrew

and

Murrell

Appearances:

P. Bledman for the appellant.

Respondent in person.

Practice and procedure - Plea of guilty — Magistrate made no note of what the appellant said in his notebook — Conviction allowed to stand, but sentence set aside.

Lewis, C.J.

1 The appellant/defendant pleaded guilty to a complaint that he had not obeyed an order of the Magistrate of the Second District Court ordering him to quit land at Blanchard in the quarter of Micoud not later than the 31 ^st January 1969. That order had been made on a complaint under section 434 of the Criminal Code.

2 The learned magistrate heard both from the complainant and the defendant, although he made no note in his notebook of what the defendant said.

3 In his Reasons for Judgment he has said that the defendant said that while he himself had left, he had not removed one house as he had sold it to his father-in-law, and that in view of that statement, he came to the conclusion that the appellant did not intend to obey the order of the court and he sentenced him to one month's imprisonment.

4 The court has said before, and will say again, that when a defendant pleads guilty, the magistrate must make a note in his notebook of what the defendant says. It is not sufficient, and it is not good practice, that the magistrate should fail to make such a note and then on an appeal being taken should write into his Reasons for Decision something that does not appear in his notes of evidence. I hope magistrates will take account of what the court is saying today.

5 This appeal is taken from the decision of the learned magistrate. However the respondent, who was the complainant in the court below, has informed the court that the defendant has removed himself from the land, and that he has also removed from the land a house which remained thereon at the time when the order appealed from was made against him.

6 The court has observed that the order made by the learned magistrate in the first instance under section 434 contained no order for the removal of anything — house, animal or any other thing — that might have been on the land. It merely stated that the defendant should depart from the land by a certain date. The court has also noted that when that judgment went on appeal to the High Court, which at that time had jurisdiction in appeals from...