Rolle v Attorney General
| Jurisdiction | Bahamas |
| Judge | Adams, J |
| Judgment Date | 13 September 1983 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Bahamas) |
| Date | 13 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | Magistrate Appeal Side No. 73 of 1983 |
Supreme Court
Adams, J.
Magistrate Appeal Side No. 73 of 1983
Mr. Malcolm Adderley for appellant.
Mr. Vincent Peet for the respondent.
Practice and procedure - Appeals — Application for leave to appeal in a case involving a question of mixed fact and law — Court of Appeal Act, s. 17(1)
The appellant filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from my judgment dated the 30th day of August, 1983 on the following ground:–
“That the learned Judge erred in law in holding that because a No-Case submission was not proceeded with by the Appellant's Counsel that the learned Magistrate was under no duty to discharge the Appellant notwithstanding that a sufficient case might not have been made out against the Appellant at the close of the case for the prosecution.”
The appellant applied for a certificate under section 17(1) of the Court of Appeal Act, chapter 34. Section 17(1) of the Court of Appeal Act, chapter 34 enacts as follows:–
“17(1) Any person aggrieved by any judgment order or sentence given or made by the Supreme Court in its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, whether such judgment, order or sentence has been given or made upon appeal or revision from a magistrate or any other court, board, committee or authority exercising judicial powers, and whether or not the proceedings are civil or criminal in nature may, subject to the provisions of the Constitution and of this Act, appeal to the court on any ground of appeal which involves a point of law alone but not upon question off fact, nor of mixed fact and law nor against the severity of sentence.
Provided that no such appeal shall be heard by the court unless a Judge of the Supreme Court or of the court shall certify that the point of law is one of general public importance.” The prosecution case was outlined by the Magistrates follows:–
“The police case was that after a two car routine inspection of the Twin Lakes Farm area the police party, proceeding North, under the command of Inspector Ulric Smith and Corporal Andrew Huyler No. 703, along the Bail or main logging or Twin Lakes Road as it has been variously called saw a plane stationary on the road up ahead. As they approached the plane the same took off using the road as a runway and heading in their direction, in fact rising closely over their heads.
Their attention was then drawn to two vehicles up ahead one a white cadillac which turned out to be owned by one Ben Rolle brother of the defendants James and Neville Rolle and who was called as a defence witness and who in my view was an accomplice and in respect of whose evidence I warn myself in the same manner. This white cadillac was stationary, apparently broken down, as earlier stated. The other a brown cadillac was seen reversing towards the north away from the police. It reversed around a bend and was then turned north and it took off. Before the real chase was began James Rolle was observed to be trying to slam the trunk door shut and then to get into the passenger seat somewhat awkwardly and that the car was taking off and he almost fell out.
The police pulled up almost abreast of the brown Cadillac and the defendant R. Brown was identified positively as the driver and James Rolle as the passenger of the car in the front seat.
A high speed chase ensued heading north for some 15 to 20 miles until the brown Cadillac stopped, its rear tyre smoking at which time the police discovered the identity of a third man (who one of the police had seen earlier but not recognized) and who turned out to be Neville Rolle, sitting in the rear passenger seat.
Inside this Brown Cadillac was found 2 large bags of plant material suspected of being Indian hemp and in the trunk was discovered another 4 bags, very large. These bags were seized and then passed from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial