David v Chief of Police

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Court of Appeal (Antigua and Barbuda)
• Judge: Gordon. J.A.
• Judgment Date: 23 October 1970
• Neutral Citation: AG 1970 CA 28
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1970
• Date: 23 October 1970

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J.; Gordan, J.A.; Cecil Lewis, J.A.

Magistrate's Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1970

David

and

Chief of Police

Appearances:

C. E. Hewlett for Appellant

D. Cenac, Legal Assistant, for Respondent

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Dangerous driving

Gordon. J.A.

1 On the 5th July, 1970, the appellant in this case pleaded guilty to two charges in the magistrate's court. The first charge was that he drove his vehicle on the 28th June, 1970, while under the influence of drink or drug contrary to section 52 (1) of the Vehicles and Road Traffic Ordinance Cap. 283 of the Revised Edition of the Laws of Antigua. The second charge was that he drove the said vehicle without due care and attention contrary to section 54 of the same Ordinance. On his own plea he was convicted in each case and on the first case was disqualified for a period of 12 months, and on the second case he was fined $30.00, in default one month hard labour.

2 The appellant has appealed against the conviction for driving under the influence of drink on the ground that: –

3 “The learned magistrate was wrong to have recorded a plea of guilty and to have entered convictions for charges under section 52 and 54 of the Vehicles and Road Traffic Ordinance Cap. 203 on the same facts.” He has submitted an affidavit tending to show that at the time when the appellant pleaded guilty he did not fully appreciate the circumstances. In the course of addressing the court counsel for the appellant had to agree that the difficulties in this case about which he now complains were due to the fact that he as counsel for the appellant was late. He has nevertheless urged on the court that the convictions in respect of the two charges should not have been recorded against the appellant for the reason that they arose out of the same circumstances and therefore involved his being punished twice for one incident. He...