Obeius v Primus

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: St. Bernard, J.
• Judgment Date: 24 September 1970
• Neutral Citation: LC 1970 CA 7
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: Magisterial Criminal Appeal No. 3/1970
• Date: 24 September 1970

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J.; Lewis, J.A.; St. Bernard, J.A. (Ag.)

Magisterial Criminal Appeal No. 3/1970

Obeius

and

Primus

Appearances:

C. Compton, Legal Assistant for appellant.

Respondent served but not present.

Criminal law - Entering restricted area of airport contrary to regulations — Evidence not satisfactory — Appeal allowed

1 St. Bernard, J. (Ag.): On the 8 ^th November 1969, the respondent was charged with entering “the apron a restricted area of Vigie Airport without authority' contrary to Regulation 5(1) of the Airport Regulations S.R.& O. No. 41 of 1967.

2 The charge against the respondent was dismissed by the trial magistrate on 7 ^th May 1970. The appellant now appeals against this dismissal.

3 This appeal was heard by the court on the 22 ^nd September and dismissed. The court now gives its reasons for this dismissal.

4 The brief facts of the case are that on 8 ^th November 1969, the respondent went on to the area in question. He stated he had received permission “from the boss in charge” to see the aircraft pilot. He however did not know who the person was who gave the permission. He was charged by the police under regulation 5(1) of Airport Regulations which reads as follows:

• “5.–(1) Entry on apron restricted to certain persons. No person shall enter the apron of an airport or any customs area, except –

  • (a) persons assigned to duty therein;

  • (b) subject to paragraph (e) of this sub-regulation, public officers designated in writing by a Permanent Secretary or a Head of a Department, as the case may require;

  • (c) persons authorised by the Manager;

  • (d) passengers entering on the apron or the customs area for purposes of embarkation or disembarkation;

  • (e) persons authorised by the Collector of Customs or his duly authorised representative.”

5 It will be observed that this sub-regulation contains five paragraphs but it was not stated in the complaint which of these paragraphs related to the alleged offence. This renders the complaint defective and is a sufficient ground for dismissing the appeal.

6 The evidence shows that only the Comptroller of Customs and the Airport Manager testified that they had not given permission to the respondent to enter the apron; in fact the Airport Manager was not on duty that day and so could not have given such permission.

7 In Regulation 2 ‘Airport Manager’ is defined as including the Director of Civil Aviation. This officer,...