Edwards v Compton
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Lewis, C.J. |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 1970 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 1970 CA 2 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 1 of 1970 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia) |
| Date | 22 January 1970 |
Court of Appeal
Lewis, C.J.; Gordon, J.A.; St. Bernard, J.A.
Appeal No. 1 of 1970
K. Foster, J. Reynolds and B. Edwards for appellant.
V.F. Floissac, Q.C., and Giraudy for respondent.
Criminal law - False statement made for purpose of affecting return of appellant to House of Assembly — No grounds for allowing appeal against conviction.
The appellant brought a case against the respondent under section 71(3) of the House of Assembly Elections Ordinance, Chapter 121, complaining that the respondent on the 22 nd of April, 1969, in the course of a public political meeting held at Aux Lyons in the Quarter of Dennery, for the purpose of affecting the return of the appellant who was a candidate for the ninth Electoral District at the then pending General Elections, made a false statement of fact in relation to the personal character of the appellant, namely – “Archie”, (that is, the appellant) “Boswell Williams and the rats on the Board stole £200,000 banana money.”
The case was lodged on the 16th of May. There was some considerable delay before it was heard. The hearing commenced on the 29 th of August 1969. It lasted for several days and then on the 4 th of September 1969, the learned magistrate reserved his decision until the 10 th of December. The Court will say something about this in a moment.
The complainant/appellant gave evidence and he was supported by a witness, Belfield Griffith. They gave evidence of the meeting and both said that they heard the respondent use the words complained of. They were both examined. The cross-examination related mostly to the presence or absence of a tape recorder alleged to have been carried by the appellant, and also to the contents of the speech which was made by the respondent at the meeting.
I should say that this was a meeting in support of Dr. Monrose, who was also a candidate for the same district as the appellant, the appellant representing the St. Lucia Labor Party, and Dr. Monrose the United Workers' Party.
The defendant/respondent also gave evidence. He gave the contents of his speech, which he said was divided into three parts: first, improvements to Dennery, secondly, about a false rumor which he said was being spread by the appellant and which he wished to deny, and thirdly, with regard to the Banana Association and its operations while the appellant was a director of the Board of that Association.
It will be seen that the alleged words relate to a sum of £200,000 which, according to the evidence, was spent by the Board while the appellant was a member, with the result that whereas when he became a member there was a considerable surplus, by 1967 when the constitution of the Board was changed by statute, there was a deficit and an overdraft. The case for the appellant was that in reference to that state of affairs the respondent was publicly accusing the appellant and his colleagues of having stolen the sum of £200,000.
Undoubtedly the case was a serious one and carried serious consequences — one of which is that a person who is convicted of this offence can no longer hold office as a member of the Legislature, and would, moreover, be disenfranchised for a period of five years.
No doubt with that consideration in mind, the learned magistrate allowed the cross-examination of the witnesses to range far and wide so that the case seems to have taken up a much longer time than it really ought to have done. Then, after the period of three months for which he reserved his decision, the learned magistrate did not deliver a prepared judgment but merely stated that he was not sure that the respondent had spoken the words and therefore the case was dismissed.
This appeal is from that decision, and the learned magistrate has given in writing, as he is required by law to do, his reasons for his decision.
After a brief reference to the evidence of the appellant and his witness and reference to the evidence of the respondent, he said that he found as a fact that the meeting did take place; that the appellant had lost the election and Dr. Monrose had won it; that the appellant had been a Director of the Board, and reserves of over £200,000 had in fact been expended. He commended the respondent for the way in which he had given his evidence; he found that the witness for the appellant was an unreliable witness, and finally he said:
“I believed the defendant when he said that at that meeting he did not accuse anyone of stealing monies, directly or indirectly. The general impression which I have formed from having seen and heard all the witnesses, and from studying the notes of evidence, is that I cannot feel sure that the defendant used the words complained of, or accused the complainant of theft or dishonesty. Based on the above I dismissed the case.”
A number of grounds of appeal have been taken. They can really be classed under two heads: first of all, that the magistrate erred in not permitting questions to be asked of the appellant in...
To continue reading
Request your trial