The Queen v Benoit

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Ramdhani, J.
• Judgment Date: 17 May 2016
• Neutral Citation: LC 2016 HC 2
• Docket Number: SLUCHRD2013/1094
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 17 May 2016

High Court

Ramdhani, J. (Ag.)

SLUCHRD2013/1094

The Queen

and

Benoit

Appearances

Mr. Daarsreen Greene for the defendant.

Mrs. T. Calderon, Crown Counsel for the Prosecution.

Criminal Practice and Procedure - Sufficiency Hearing — Committal — Whether there was sufficient evidence to ground a committal — Whether the prosecution had presented prima facie evidence that an indictable offence had been committed — Prima facie evidence of aiding and abetting — Whether the auditor's report could be admitted into evidence pursuant to Section 55 of the Evidence Act — Finding that there was insufficient evidence to ground a committal once the auditor report was deemed inadmissible — Rule 9.3 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, Cap 3.01

An audit conducted as a result of allegations of misappropriation of State funds at a State Agency is an ‘investigation’ within the meaning of section 55(4) of the Evidence Act, Cap 4.15 of the 2008 Revised Edition of the Laws of St. Lucia. A report which records the findings of such an audit is caught by section 55(4) and accordingly inadmissible at a sufficiency hearing into a criminal charge.

Section 55(4) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 4. 15 of the 2008 Revised Laws of St. Lucia explained.

At a sufficiency hearing pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Rules, Cap. 3.01 of the 2008 Revised Laws of St. Lucia, the court is to consider whether there is a prima facie case of an offence. The test is whether the prosecution evidence taken at its highest is such that a jury properly directed could properly convict of that offence. Where there is no direct evidence providing prima facie evidence of the essential elements of the offence at a sufficiency hearing, the court is duty bound to consider whether there are legitimate inferences which can be drawn from the evidence to ground a committal.

Applied: Rule 9.3 of the Criminal Procedure. Rules Cap. 3.01 of the 2008 Revised Laws of St.

Lucia; Galbraith [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1039

Considered: National Coal Board v. Gamble[1959] 1 Q.B. 11; Johnson v. Youden[1950] 1 K.B. 544; Neill v. North Antrim Magistrates' Court ex parte Boyce(1984) 79 Cr App R 132; R v. Ricketts and another– [2011] All E.R. (D) 125 (Apr); R v. Watt (James) & ors [2011] E.W.C.A. Crim. 1325).

1 Ramdhani, J. (AG.) On the 12th April 2016, after considering an application made by Mr. Greene for the defendant, I gave an oral ruling dismissing the charge against the defendant and discharging her. At the time I promised to reduce my decision into writing. This fulfills that promise.

2 The defendant was charged and brought before the court for sufficiency hearing for the offence of aiding and abetting another to obtain property by deception contrary to section 62(1) of the Criminal Code Cap. 301 of the 2008 Revised Laws of St. Lucia.

3 At the sufficiency hearing counsel for the defendant asked the court to deem as inadmissible into evidence, an auditors' report which had forms part of the committal bundle. Counsel further submitted that if the court agreed that this document is inadmissible, it ought to be struck from the record. He submitted that in those circumstances there was no other evidence capable of sustaining the charge and that accordingly the charge should be dismissed.

4 After hearing from the Crown and considering the matter, the Court has agreed with counsel on both points and rule that the charge should be dismissed for the following reasons.

THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE SUFFICIENCY HEARING

5 The defendant at all material times was an employee of the Bordelais Correctional Facility. The allegation is that between December 2011 and December 2012, the defendant assisted another prison employee, one Mr. Cuthbert who is now deceased, to obtain property by deception. According to the police statement made by one Francois Henry which is contained in the committal bundle, he was contacted by the deceased to supply vegetable seedlings to the prison on a regular basis. He would sell the seedlings and produce an invoice for the Prison. He would be called by the deceased when the cheques in payment were ready. The deceased convinced him to accept cheques for greater amounts than which he was entitled to and to pay to him, the deceased, the difference.

6 In his police statement this witness introduces the defendant to the crime when he said that: “Every time I collected a cheque and cashed it. I would hand over the money to Cuthbert. I only handed over money to Ann Marie on one occasion in a sealed envelope.” Later on this witness states: “Anne Marie and Cuthbert would pay me an additional hundred dollars together with what was owed to me. After a while I got uncomfortable with what was happening and brought it to their attention. After that I stopped receiving orders from them for seedlings and cheques to cash.”

7 The connection this evidence makes to the defendant is found in the highlighted portion above, namely that he handed over the ‘excess money’ on one occasion to the defendant in a sealed envelope to be passed on to the deceased. He provides no details on how the ‘additional hundred dollars’ was paid.

8 Nothing in this statement gives any details as to the scope of the defendant's duties at the prisons.

9 The other material bit of evidence relied on by the Crown at the Committal stage was the auditors’ report dated 22nd March 2013 prepared by two persons who are described as a ‘Field Audit Team’ on the report. A handwritten letter is attached to the report and which had been relied on in the report. That handwritten letter is purported to have been written by Mr. Francois Henry. That letter which is dated the 24th January 2013 states:

“I was first approached by the accountant of the institution to procure vegetable seedlings for the institution and monies were paid to me for such. Then I was approach by Mr. Benoit to receive cheques in my name for other farm input, which I did not supply, which I cashed and handed over to the accountant and Ms. Benoit after the cheques are cashed. This happened for more than once. I then brought it to their attention that I am not comfortable with that and since I have made mention of this I have not received any request. After the monies handed to them I would receive a hundred dollars.”

10 In the report, this letter is referred to and forms the basis of a statement made by the ‘auditors’ (sic) that: “…it can be concluded that the notion that Ms. Benoit was unaware of the [criminal] arrangement is not an accurate statement of fact.”

11 Additionally, it is in this report information is provided that Ms. Benoit is the ‘Industries Manager’ and was ‘integrally involved in procurement and receipt of goods and services’.

12 This report was provided to the court as part of the committal bundle. lt was noted that the report was handed over to the investigating officer and that the original...