Henry v Frederick

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Wills, J.
• Judgment Date: 09 August 1957
• Neutral Citation: LC 1957 HC 1
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 09 August 1957
• Docket Number: No. 5 of 1957

High Court. (Appellate Jurisdiction)

Wills, J.

No. 5 of 1957

Henry

and

Frederick

Appearances:

Donald B. James for appellant.

EA Heyliger, Crown Attorney for respondent.

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Entry on land without owner's consent.

Facts: The appellant was convicted of being found on lands without leave of the owner or occupier. The issue was whether the evidence showed that the appellant committed the offence.

Held: There was no equivocal evidence by the prosecution to prove the essential ingredient that the consent had been given by the owner. Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.

Wills, J.

1 The appellant was convicted by the magistrate of the First District Court of having been found on lands without leave of the owner or occupier or a person in charge thereof and failing to give a good account of himself.

2 The magistrate sentenced the appellant to one-month imprisonment with hard labour.

3 The appellant appeals against the said conviction and relies on the statutory ground of appeal as provided by Section 1118 of the Criminal Code of St. Lucia.

4 (1) that he is not guilty of the offence;

5 The appellant was charged under Section 664 (b), which reads thus:

“Whoever enters or is seen or is fund on or within any land or premises whether enclosed 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 …..”

6 In order to make out a prima facie case the prosecution had to prove (2) two essential ingredients.

7 First: that the appellant was found upon the lands as set out in the charge; though the actual apprehension of appellant on the lands in question was not necessary to constitute “being found” there.

8 In the case of Moran v. Jones 75 J.P. at p. 411.

9 Bray J. says “in order to be found upon premises, a person must be upon these premises and the offence therefore consists in being upon premises for an unlawful purpose and being found there. It is not in my opinion sufficient for a person to be upon the premises for an unlawful purpose unless he is also found there.

10 What constitutes a finding within the meaning of the section?

11 The simplest case would be a case of apprehension upon the premises.

12 Actual apprehension upon the premises is however in my opinion not necessary to constitute the offence. I think there may be many cases in which a person is found upon premises within the meaning of the section although he is not apprehended until after he has quitted the premises.”

13 Secondly: The prosecution must establish by direct evidence or prove such facts and other circumstances from which follows the only reasonable inference “without the leave of the owner, occupier or person in charge thereof”

14 The whole gist of the offence is “being found upon lands...