Eastmond v Fevriere

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Bishop, J.
• Judgment Date: 24 May 1967
• Neutral Citation: LC 1967 HC 5
• Date: 24 May 1967
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: Crim. Appeal No. 12 of 1966

High Court

Bishop, J.; Glasgow, J.

Crim. Appeal No. 12 of 1966

Eastmond

and

Fevriere

Appearances:

K.A.H. Foster for the appellant

Steven A. Brown, Legal Assistant, for the respondent

Evidence - Appellant found on premises without leave of owner — Whether magistrate had sufficient evidence to find that the appellant was on the premises without a right to be there — Appeal dismissed but sentence varied.

Bishop, J.

1 In this Appeal, the Court in the interest of justice, raised with counsel for their consideration the question whether or not the charge as it stood disclosed an offence known to the law of Saint Lucia.

2 The section under which the charge was laid — section 664 subsection (b) of the Criminal Code, Chapter 250, Volume 5 of the Revised Laws of Saint Lucia, 1957 states inter alia:

“Whoever does any of the following acts is a vagrant or idle or disorderly person, and liable summarily to imprisonment for one month; that is to say, whoever:–

Whoever is found on or within any land or premises whether in-closed or not, without the leave of the owner, occupier, or person in charge thereof, and does not give a good account of himself, or satisfy the Court that he had a right to be therein or thereon.”

3 We are of the opinion that depending on the circumstances, the section affords the prosecutor a choice either that the defendant was found on the premises without such leave. It is our opinion that in the former case the defendant would have offered an account which the prosecutor would have alleged was not a good account, whereas in the latter case the defendant would be required to satisfy the Court that he had a right to be there and therefore in the charge it would be necessary to allege only that the defendant was found on the premises without the leave as required by the section.

4 We are satisfied therefore that this charge before us creates an offence in which the burden shifts, by the ordinance on to the defendant to satisfy the Court that he had a right to be there.

5 We have not had the benefit of any reasons for the decision of the learned magistrate for the District Court: however, we have been told reliably that this is very likely due to the fact that the learned magistrate left this Island at short notice and having no time to supply written reasons. We are satisfied that it is the function of this Court to analyse the testimony so as to decide whether the conviction in the Court below was justified notwithstanding absence of reasons for it.

6 Was there sufficient evidence on which the learned magistrate could have concluded that the appellant was found in the premises of Matthew Saltibus? Vas there evidence as to who was the owner and whether his leave was given. The term “owner” as it applied to premises is defined by section 452 subsection (4) of the Criminal Code of Saint Lucia.

7 We are satisfied that there was ample...