St. Rose v Delice

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Peterkin, J.
• Judgment Date: 29 July 1968
• Neutral Citation: LC 1968 HC 24
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1968
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 29 July 1968

West Indies Associated States Supreme Court. (High Court)

Bishop and Peterkin, JJ.A.

Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1968

St. Rose

and

Delice

Appearances:

Appellant in person.

Respondent absent.

Natural justice - Right to be heard — The appellant alleged that the respondent threatened him with a harpoon and a knife. The respondent was convicted by the magistrate. The magistrate also placed the appellant on a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The question was whether the bond ought to be lifted — It was contrary to the principles of natural justice to impose punishment or to make an order against a person where he has not been told before hand of that possibility. The appellant had not been given the opportunity of being heard. An order was made that the bond be lifted. Appeal allowed.

Peterkin, J.

1 The complainant filed a complaint against the defendant for threatening him with a switch-knife and a harpoon. The learned magistrate in his reason for his decision as appears on the record came to the conclusion that the evidence proved that the defendant had used threatening words and he went on to say that had the charge be so framed, namely, for threatening words, that he would have convicted the defendant. He then went on to place the defendant on a bond to be of good behavior.

2 The matter however did not rest there. The learned magistrate went one step further, and he placed the complainant on a similar bond to keep the peace and be of good behavior. In his reasons he gave as justification for this the existing state of relationship between the two parties. We do know that the learned magistrate had jurisdiction to place the complainant on a bond and indeed he could even have ordered a witness to have signed such a bond, if the circumstances justified it. However, there is a case to which we would like to refer which deals with the point at issue. It is the case of Dorsett v. Bailey (1996) W.I.R. Vol. 8 Part II page 410. There the appellant preferred a charge against the respondent for using annoying language. A magistrate found the charge proved and after convicting him therefor reprimanded and discharged him and placed him on a bond to keep the peace and be of good behavior. He then proceeded to put the appellant on a similar bond without informing him beforehand of what was passing through his (the magistrate's) mind or giving, him an opportunity of being heard in that behalf. On appeal it...