Lamontagne v Herelle

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Judge: Bishop.
• Judgment Date: 29 July 1968
• Neutral Citation: LC 1968 HC 20
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1968
• Date: 29 July 1968

West Indies Associated States Supreme Court. (High Court)

Bishop and Peterkin, JJ.A.

Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1968

Lamontagne

and

Herelle

Appearances:

Clive Compton for appellant.

I. D'Auvergne for respondent.

Practice and procedure - Criminal procedure — Appeal against decision — Assault

Facts: This was an appeal against a decision in which the magistrate dismissed the cross complaint of the appellant. The appellant had alleged that the respondent beat him contrary to section 118 of the Criminal Code which dealt with the grounds of appeal where the appellant is the defendant –

Held: This was a case which had to be decided upon the basis of credibility and therefore it was a matter for the magistrate to determine. There was no reason to disturb the magistrate's findings of fact for the respondent. There was ample evidence on which the magistrate could have made the findings he did. Conviction affirmed. Appeal dismissed.

Bishop.

1 On the 20 ^th March 1968, Mary Herelle of Soufriere lodged a complaint against Rudolph Lamontagne of Soufriere in which she alleged that on Monday 26 ^th February 1968, at about 3.30 p.m. at Quarte Chemin in Soufriere, he unlawfully assault and beat her, contrary to section 114 of the Criminal Code.

2 Then, on the 25 ^th March 1968 Rudolph Lamontagne lodged a similar complaint against Mary Herelle in connection with the same incident. He alleged that she unlawfully assault and beat him on Monday 26 ^th February 1968 at Quarte Chemin in Soufriere.

3 These cross complaints made by the same parties with reference to the same matter were heard and determined by the court at one and the same time by virtue of Section 1078.

4 The learned magistrate convicted Lamontagne and fined him Thirty dollars or one month, and he dismissed the case brought against Mary Herelle.

5 Rudolph Lamontagne appealed against the decision of the learned magistrate in each case. He did not file any reasons for appealing and counsel on his behalf, has relied on the statutory grounds contained in the section 1118 of the Criminal Code. These grounds refer to the position of an appellant who is the defendant, and that of the appellant who is the complainant; and the section states:

“if no reason or ground of appeal have been served, the grounds of appeal shall be deemed to be generally for an appellant:

• (a) if a defendant:

  • (i) that he is not guilty of the offence;

  • (ii) that the decision is altogether unwarranted;

  • (iii) that the punishment is excessive

• (b) if a complainant:

  • (i) that the defendant is guilty of the offence with which he stood charged;

  • (ii) that the dismissal is altogether unwarranted by the evidence;

  • (iii) where an order has been made against him that is not warranted by the evidence.”

6 From the record before the court it is clear that the evidence before the learned magistrate showed that the appellant...