Sherman v Commissioner of Police

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Gonsalves-Sabola, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 09 October 1990
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)
• Date: 09 October 1990
• Docket Number: Appeal from Magistrate's Court No. 27 of 1990

Supreme Court

Gonsalves-Sabola, C.J.

Appeal from Magistrate's Court No. 27 of 1990

Sherman

and

Commissioner of Police

Appearances:

Mr. Wilbert Moss for the appellant

Mr. Desmond Bannister for the respondent

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction and sentence — Possession of dangerous drugs with intent to supply — Drugs found by police during a search at the appellant's family's home — Appellant in Miami at time of search — No admissible evidence that the room in which the drugs were found was his bedroom — Appeal allowed.

Gonsalves-Sabola, C.J.

1 On the 30th of November, 1989, the police executed a search on the home of the Shermans at Alice Town, North Bimini. Present were the father of the family and a daughter of the family. Absent were the appellant, and two sons. One of the sons, that is the appellant, was in Miami at the time. The police found the dangerous drugs, the subject matter of the two counts of the charge involved in this appeal, in a bedroom cunningly secreted in a waterbed. The fact of the matter is that at the time the drugs were found the appellant was not in residence, and there is no admissible evidence whatever that the room in which the drugs were found was his bedroom.

2 There is evidence that near the place where the drugs were found secreted was a briefcase which admittedly was the briefcase of the appellant. It contained a substantial amount of money, which was not shown in any way to have any connection with the drugs. The only evidence that tended to link the appellant with the room in which the drugs were found was a statement made to the police in the absence of the appellant by his father. That, of course, was not admissible evidence against the appellants and even if that room were proved to have been his bedroom, the question of the access of other persons, not merely to the bedroom but to the place of storage of the drugs, was left wide open. Obviously it would seem that more persons than one had access to the area where the drugs were found, and there is nothing more against the appellant than what has already been suggested in the utterances I have already made.

3 Since the entirety of the case for the prosecution in relation to each of the two counts defended on proof of possession, it is quite clear to me that the prosecution had failed to make out a prima facie case of the possession and the appellant had a right to be discharged at the end of the...