Daley v The Queen

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Court of Appeal (Antigua and Barbuda)
• Judge: Lewis C. J.
• Judgment Date: 25 February 1969
• Neutral Citation: AG 1969 CA 1
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1968
• Date: 25 February 1969

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J., Gordon and Lewis, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1968

Daley

and

The Queen

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Recent possession — Shopbreaking and receiving of stolen goods

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Recent possession — Shopbreaking and receiving of stolen goods

Facts: The issue was sufficient evidence to support the appellant's conviction. Evidence revealed that the appellant was found to be in possession of goods which were identified as stolen property. The doctrine of recent possession requires that it be proven beyond reasonable doubt the goods found with the appellant were in fact the goods stolen —

Facts: The issue to be determined was whether the judges' directions of the jury on how to assess the appellant's evidence was unfavourable to the appellant. Evidence revealed that the appellant's evidence was given under oath. The Judge in his summation stated that the evidence could be used “against” either of the accused, all, as none of them —

Held: This was a question of fact to be decided by the jury and there was sufficient evidence to support the appellant's conviction. Appeal dismissed.

Held: The word “against” was unfortunate since for evidence given under oath the proper direction “the evidence is evidence in his case”, and not evidence for or against him. Despite this, when the entire summoning up was considered it was up to the jury if they accepted the evidence as true, to give it due consideration. Appeal dismissed.

1 Lewis C. J. delivered the judgment of the Court: The appellant was charged along with two other persons, Howell and Riley, on an indictment which contained counts for shop breaking and larceny and also for receiving. A large quantity of goods was alleged to have been stolen from the store of Mr. Stephen B. Shoul when it was broken into between the 16th and 18th of March, 1968. They included shirts, vents, trousers, jackets, and they also included a quantity of liquor, but the liquor is not material to this case. The padlock of one of the store-rooms had been broken and entry obtained in that way. Indeed, three store-rooms were broken into.

2 On the 12th April, the officer in charge of the investigation, Corporal Charles, along with some constables, went to the residence of the appellant at Bolans inhere he was living with a woman named Emelda Cornelius. He was not the when the police officers arrived, but, with the permission of Cornelius, and in execution of a Warrant, they searched his residence. In a green pillow-case which was sewn up, they found seven shirts, six vests, five pants, and a windbreaker lumber jacket. Later on the same morning, they met the appellant. They informed him of what they had found, and went with him to another house that he was occupying at Greenbay Hill, and there they found another quantity of vests, shirts, etc. The appellant said that these things belonged to one William Howell, with whom he had been living.

3 The evidence produced at the trial included a statement that he had made at the Police Station. Apparently no importance attaches to that statement, and this Court has not been provided with a copy of it, nor has it been referred to by learned counsel for the appellant. The items of clothing which had been found in his possession were put in evidence, and also a certain number of items which had been found in the possession of the other two accused with whom he was tried.

4 Stephen Shoul's evidence provided the evidence of identification of the goods. He divided the shirts and vests into two groups, some which were sold in Antigua, and others which were not, and he said that of the shirts which were not sold in Antigua, were some Banlon shirts which were in cartons in his warehouse having recently arrived from Guyana, and had not yet been put on his counters. He said that he was the sole agent for this class of goods in Antigua.

5 As the case depended upon the doctrine of recent possession,, it was important that there should be some evidence by which the Jury could be satisfied beyond doubt, that the goods found in the possession of the appellant were a part of the goods which had been stolen from the store-rooms of Stephen Shoul. Before the Jury, Shoul picked out those items which he said had never been placed on sale in Antigua.

6 The appellant gave evidence. He said that he had been living with the men, Howell and Riley, that one night he woke up to find that through the fault of Riley...