Crevelle v Magistrate 4 Court B
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Sharma, J.A. |
| Judgment Date | 20 April 2000 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2000 CA 21 |
| Docket Number | Pos Mag. No. 278 of 1999 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Date | 20 April 2000 |
Court of Appeal
Sharma, J.A. Ibrahim J.A. Nelson, JJ.A.
Pos Mag. No. 278 of 1999
Mr. Monroe Brown for the appellant.
Ms. Sofia Chote for the respondent.
Practice and procedure - Powers of presiding magistrate to prosecute — Appellant charged for contempts of court and sentenced to seven days imprisonment on each count — Appealed against conviction and sentence — Section 24 of Summary Courts Act — Whether ‘offences' charged had been established at law — Court found that entire exercise from beginning to end could not and did not constitute a proper judicial basis for finding the appellant guilty of the offences and the sentence of seven days imprisonment — Conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
This appeal raises matters of great public importance.
The issues raised concern the uncompromisingly draconian offences created under Pt. II of the Summary Court Act Chap. 4:20 and which permit a presiding magistrate to charge, prosecute and find guilty persons in court, whose behaviour he believes to be offensive.
It is, we think important that we set out verbatim, the record of the proceedings which led to the conviction and sentence of seven days imprisonment of Clydene Crevelle (the appellant) who was present in court. We set out hereunder notes taken by the presiding magistrate:
Wednesday 29th September 1999 Before
His Worship R. Waldropt Magistrate,
Trinidad and Tobago
At P.O.S. Magistrate's
Fourth Arms and ammunition court
Case No. 9849-50/99 & 10195/99
Prosecutor: Cpl. Gulston #1099
No appearance of Complainant: Mr. Soogrim for prosecution
Complainant appears later
Defendant appears - Mr. Delzing
PC Elliot # 12418 V John Prince
Mr. Soogrim further cross examines Mr. John Prince
Miss Clydene Crevelle present in court
Court: (Miss Clydene Crevelle warned of her antics and laughing in court.
Miss Clydene Crevelle replies:- “I have not yet opened my mouth.”
Court:-Warned her of her behaviour, asked to leave court.
Miss Clydene Crevelle replies: “I don't know what I do, he must be know what I do.”
Court:- Calls on both attorneys to assist with law.
(1) Clydene Crevelle on 29/9/99 at 4th Magistrate's Court Port of Spain, you willfully interrupted court by laughing while the court was in session. Contrary to section 24 (d) of the Summary Court Act Chap. 4:20.
(2) Clydene Crevelle on 29/9/99 at 4th Magistrate's Court Port of Spain, you actually expressed disobedience in court to a direction of the magistrate to leave the court when you said “I don't know what I do, he must be know what I do.
Contrary to section 24(e) of the Summary Court Act Chap. 4:20.
Court: You were previously warned of your behaviour in court on Monday.
Court: Do you have anything to say?
Clydene Crevelle: “I have nothing to say.”
Sentenced to 7 days Simple Imprisonment on both charges.
Sgd. Reynold Waldropta
Magistrate
Trinidad & Tobago
St. George West
Perhaps we ought to mention that there were two complaints issued or caused to be so against the appellant specifying the separate charges.
The appellant has appealed against the convictions and sentence and the convicting magistrate has in accordance with sec 27(1) transmitted a full statement of the case specifying fully the causes of such conviction. By Sub Sec. (2) this Court is then called upon to consider the statement together with any grounds of appeal. Again we think it appropriate to set out fully THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
On Wednesday 29th September 1999, while presiding at the Port of Spain 4B Magistrate's Court (Arms and Ammunition) in the matter of PC Elliot v. John Prince, I convicted the appellant Clydene Crevelle for two offences under section 24(d) and 24(e) of the Summary Courts Act Chap 4:20. The appellant was sentenced to seven (7) days simple imprisonment on each offence. s.24 of the Summary Courts Act Chap. 4:20 provides as follows:
“The following shall be offences under this Act and shall be dealt with hereinafter provided (d) willfully interrupting and obstructing any proceedings of the court or any misbehaviour in court and (e) actual and express disobedience in court to any direction ruling or order of the Magistrate or Justice made in the course of the hearing.” It is necessary to give the facts which have given rise to the conviction and sentence. On Monday 27th September the defendant John Prince gave evidence on his own behalf in the matter brought by PC Elliot against him whilst in the course of giving evidence Mr. John Prince's attorney Mr. Delzin brought to the court's attention the fact that the appellant was laughing and disturbing the proceeding. I, without naming anyone in particular warned all parties to conduct themselves properly.
Mr. John Prince completed his evidence-in-chief and Mr. Soogrim for the prosecution began his cross examination. The day's proceedings were brought to a close and the matter was adjourned to the 29th September 1999 to continue. On the 29th September 1999 the cross examination of Mr. John Prince continued. During the course of the hearing I observed the appellant laughing and gesticulating to Mr. John Prince. I warned the appellant about that behaviour and she replied “I have not yet opened my mouth”. Again I warned the appellant about her behaviour and asked her to leave the court. The appellant stood up, turned towards Mr. Clyde Crevelle, her father who was sitting at the Bar table (he being a member of the Bar) and said “I don't know what I do, he must be know what I do.” She did not leave the court as instructed. I then called the appellant forward and indicated to her that I was going to formally charge her with two offences under section 24 of the Summary Courts Act Chapter 4:20. I then called upon Mr. Delzin and Mr. Soogrim to assist me on the law, which they both did. I then formulated the two charges under section 24(d) and (e) against the appellant. I then reduced the two charges into writing in the case sheet and I also caused the clerk to make a note of the charges in the official record book. I then read the charges to the appellant and inquired whether she had anything to say? The appellant replied that she had nothing to say. I then proceeded to sentence the appellant to seven days simple imprisonment on both charges. In adopting the course which I did, I had regard to the authority of:–
Daniel Brown - PC Trevor St Louis – ex parte The Magistrate St George West (unreported)
Magistrate App. No.9 of 1985
and the words of Bernard, J.A. (as he then was) at page 6.
We entertain the view that in this jurisdiction a magistrate is empowered to deal with certain kinds of contemptuous behaviour of which the offence alleged against the appellant is indeed one of them. Such power is, in our view vested in him by reasons of part II of the Act. Part II of the Act is headed “Offences relating to the Administration of Justice in Summary Courts. “In our opinion part II of the Act is complete and comprehensive code which deals with certain kinds of contemptuous behaviour and the power of a magistrate in relation thereto.”
Bernard, J.A concluded at page 9.
“In all these circumstances we have come to the conclusion that this was a proper trial for contempt. That the learned Magistrate was empowered with Statutory power under part II to punish her for contempt.” That a Court of Summary Jurisdiction can punish for contempt, is made manifestly clear by the dicta in this authority. In coming to a decision as to the procedure to be followed in dealing with any offence under 5.24. I found great assistance from the following authorities:–
(1) Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj v. AG of Trinidad and Tobago (No.1) (1976) 29 W.I.R. 318
It can be gleaned from these authorities, that given the summary nature of the evidence to punish for offences under s.24. That regard must be had to the rules of natural justice and fair play. The defendant ought to be given a full opportunity to prepare to answer the charges. The law demands that the particulars of the charge be brought to the defendant and that an opportunity be first given to the person attending to show cause or to explain his conduct before punishment is ordered. Having come to a decision that a court of Summary Jurisdiction has the power to punish for contempt and having regard to the procedure to be followed I was concerned as to what punishment ought to be visited on the appellant. Section 25(1) Summary Courts Act sets out the penalties which can be imposed on an offender found guilty of an offence under section 24(1). Section 25(1) of the Summary Courts Act Chapter 4:20 provides as follows:–
If, in the opinion of the Magistrate or Justice, any offence mentioned in section 24 is committed by any person, a constable may, on the verbal order of the Magistrate or Justice if the person is present in court, or on the warrant of the Magistrate or Justice if the person is not present in court, take the person into custody, and thereupon the Magistrate or Justice may, if he thinks fit:–
-
(a) admonish and discharge him; or
-
(b) order him to be removed from the court; or
-
(c) order him to pay a fine of two hundred dollars; or
-
(d) without the imposition of any fine, by warrant under his hand commit him to prison without hard labour for fourteen days.
Having considered all the factors in this case I considered that a term of imprisonment under section 25(1)D would make the justice of the case. Accordingly the appellant was sentenced to a term of seven (7) days on each charge. In deciding that sentence I considered the following factors:
-
(1) hat the dignity of the court must be maintained at...
To continue reading
Request your trial