Luces v Ramsingh

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Corbin, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 22 March 1976
• Neutral Citation: TT 1976 CA 21
• Docket Number: Mag. App.
• Date: 22 March 1976

Court of Appeal

Phillips, J.A.; Corbin, J.A.

Mag. App.

Luces

and

Ramsingh

Appearances:

Mr. R. Benjamin appeared for the appellant.

Mr. N. King appeared for the respondent

Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction — Assault

Corbin, J.A.

1 This appellant was charged by Sooklal Ramsingh on a complaint which alleged that he had unlawfully assaulted and beaten the complainant. The matter came before the court on the 9th May, 1975, and the appellant failed to appear. The case was then adjourned to the 14th May, 1975, when the appellant did appear and pleaded not guilty. On that date it was adjourned further to the 11th June, 1875, when the appellant did not appear in person but he was represented by counsel and the matter was further adjourned to the 16th July, 1975. On that date, when the matter was called up the appellant again failed to appear and it was postponed to the 23rd July. On the 23rd July, the appellant again failing to appear, the matter was proceeded with. The complainant gave evidence and was cross-examined by the appellant's counsel. When the magistrate had heard all the evidence he came to the conclusion that the charge against the appellant had been proved. He found the appellant guilty, fined him $10.00, ordered him to pay $50.00 compensation or, in the alternative, to serve 2 months imprisonment with hard labour.

2 The appellant has now appealed against his conviction on the grounds: (1) that he is not guilty, (2) that the sentence imposed is unduly severe, and (3.) that the learned magistrate did not ensure that the appellant had an opportunity to be heard.

3 In support of the third ground of appeal he has filed an affidavit in which he seeps to set out the reasons why he was not in court on the day the matter was heard. In this affidavit he says that his the 11th June 1975, he left Blanchisseuse at 7 o'clock in the morning to travel to Maracas where he had difficulty in getting further transportation and he actually arrived in court in Port-of-Spain at 9:30 a.m. He was told that the matter had already been adjourned to the 16th July. On the 16th July he says he left Blanchisseuse at 6:30 a.m. on a fishing van, which took him to Las Cuevas. Further difficulty arose. He arrived in court at Port-of-Spain at 10:00 a.m. by which time the matter had been adjourned to the 23rd July. He says that in an effort to get to court on time on the 23rd, he left Blanchisseuse by Public Transport bus at 6:30 a.m., arrived in Arima at 8:30 a.m., had to wait for a taxi there for a long time and arrived in court eventually at 10:30 a.m. by which time the matter had already been determined.

4 The, court record shows that the matter was actually heard at 10:30 a.m. although the appellant says he...