Adderley v Commissioner of Police

JurisdictionBahamas
CourtSupreme Court
JudgeGonsalves-Sabola, J.
Judgment Date25 Sep 1990
Docket NumberAppeal from Magistrates's Court No. 12 of 1990

Supreme Court

Gonsalves-Sabola, C.J. (Acting)

Appeal from Magistrates's Court No. 12 of 1990

Adderley
and
Commissioner of Police
Appearances:

Mr. Arlington Butler for the appellant.

Mr. Desmond Banister for the respondent.

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Possession of dangerous drugs — Possession of dangerous drugs with intent to supply — Application by counsel for appellant to visit the locus in quo refused by magistrate — Magistrate mistakenly thinking that the nature of the premises in question had changed since the appellant's arrest — Whether magistrate made error in accepting the evidence of two police officers — Dangerous Drugs Act, Cap. 233; Evidence Act, s. 127.

Gonsalves-Sabola, J.
1

This is an appeal against the conviction of appellant by a Stipendiary and Circuit Magistrate for offences of possession of dangerous drugs simpliciter and possession of dangerous drugs with intent to supply, contrary to the relevant provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act, Ch. 213.

2

The evidence on which the prosecution relied given by Detective Constable Kimmie Hinzey and Sergeant Glen Miller, and that evidence was to the effect that from premises that were near to the premises of the defendant, they observed certain conduct. The police relied upon section 127 of the Evidence Act not to disclose identity of their informant and, therefore, there was no crystal clear evidence given to indicate the particular premises from which they conducted their surveillance of the appellant. Suffice it to say that their evidence was that the appellant was seen to go to a pile of garbage in an adjoining lot and lift a piece of wood whereunder there was a bag which subsequently was found to contain packets of cocaine, 41 in number.

3

They observed the appellant conduct certain transactions involving two persons who drove up in motor cars, received packets, and gave, obviously inconsideration of the packets which they received, money. The police came to the conclusion that the appellant was selling something, and when they subsequently went to that garbage pile and lifted the particular piece of wood whereunder this business had been transacted, they found the 41 packets of substance which later proved to be cocaine.

4

The defendant, of course, in his defence denied the police evidence. His evidence made the police out to be liars. His defence was that they could not have seen what they said they saw from...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT