Isaac v Noel

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Bishop, J.
• Judgment Date: 10 December 1968
• Neutral Citation: LC 1968 HC 33
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1968
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 10 December 1968

West Indies Associated States Supreme Court. (High Court)

Lewis, C.J. and Bishop, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1968

Isaac

and

Noel

Appearances:

C.A.M. Compton for appellant.

V.F. Floissac for respondent.

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence — Assault — The appellant beat the respondent surveyor while the surveyor was lawfully executing a lawful survey on the appellant's land. The appellant was convicted and fined $20 in 14 days or 1 month's imprisonment. On the question whether the sentence was excessive.

Held: The conviction should stand and the fine be set aside. The appellant was reprimanded and discharged.

Bishop, J.

1 Francis Noel, a land surveyor of Vieux-Fort complained in the Second District Court that Hugh Isaac on Wednesday 15 ^th May this year in Saltibus in the Quarter of Choiseul did assault and beat him while he was lawfully executing a lawful survey of the land contrary to section 114 of the Criminal Code. The learned magistrate convicted Isaac and fined him Twenty dollars in fourteen days or one month imprisonment.

2 Isaac appealed against the decision and in his reasons for appeal he relied on the statutory grounds under section 1118 of the Criminal Code, and he filed additional grounds.

3 Counsel for the appellant has agreed that the reasons for appeal were filed out of time and therefore he can only now seek to rely on the statutory grounds under section 1118 of the Code.

4 Counsel for the appellant has also admitted that there is evidence on which the learned magistrate could have come to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the assault and beat charge and so he has relied on the third ground of the statutory grounds namely: that the punishment was excessive. He has brought to our attention two other cases arising out of the same incident on the same day between the same parties. In these other cases, the appellant was convicted and fined. He submits therefore that the appellant ought not to have been punished for twenty dollars as was done by the learned magistrate.

5 Counsel for the respondent has referred to section 1279(a) of the Criminal Code which in our opinion may be relevant, but in all the circumstances, we are satisfied that the conviction should stand and the fine be set aside in this case; the appellant is reprimanded and discharged.

6 Conviction affirmed, sentence set aside, appellant is reprimanded and discharged.

ERIC H.A. BISHOP

Puisne...