Evans v R

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Judge: Lewis, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 28 November 1967
• Neutral Citation: AG 1967 CA 10
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1967
• Court: Court of Appeal (Antigua and Barbuda)
• Date: 28 November 1967

Weset Indies Associated States Supreme Court. Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J., Gordon, J.A.Lewis, J.A.

Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1967

Evans

and

Regina

Appearances:

Miss F.M. Lake, Acting Legal Assistant, for the Crown.

The appellant was unrepresented and did not appear.

Practice and procedure - Trial by Jury — Directions to the jury — Receipt of stolen goods.

Facts: The issue was whether judge's directions to the jury were adequate. Evidence revealed that the police searched the appellant's room (which was also occupied by his brother and sister) and found stolen property. The judge directed the jury that if they found that the appellant's brother and sister knew nothing of the goods, they might find that the appellant must know about their presence and therefore might find him guilty.

Held: The direction was inadequate since the jury should have been told that merely finding the goods in the room occupied by the appellant was insufficient to prove possession. Something more was required to connect the appellant with the goods. Appeal allowed.

Lewis, C.J.

1 The court is indebted to Miss Lake for her assistance in this case, more particularly so because counsel who was assigned to represent the appellant on leave being granted, has not appeared and has offered no excuse for not appearing. (The court commented on the apparent discourtesy).

2 The appellant was convicted on the 23rd May 1967, for receiving stolen goods and sentenced to four years imprisonment with hard labour. He now appeals against this conviction.

3 The facts were that on the night of the 5th to 6th September, 1966, a shop run by The Antigua Modern Limited, known as he Coco Shops in St. John's, was broken into and a quantity of goods including some Madras shirts were stolen. During the course of the same night the appellant and another person, who was also convicted but who has not appealed, were at the police station. The prosecution's case does not show when they were brought there, and the only evidence about their being, taken there, at least, about the appellant's being there, is in a statement, which he made in court. Sometime in the early hours of the morning, at about 3 o'clock, he was taken by the police to the house where he lived with a brother, aged about 17, a sister aged about 15, and appellant his father and mother. The house was opened by one of the parents and the police went with the accused into the room which himself and his brother and sister occupied. The brother and sister were lying on a bed in the room. A search was made, and on a suitcase, which the appellant claimed was his own, were two Madras shirts. The evidence for the prosecution was, that on this suitcase being taken up by the appellant at the request of the police, in order that the police might search it, the shirts dropped off of the suitcase on to the bed, and the sister Ethlyn rolled on to them. The grip was searched, nothing was taken from it, and then the corporal who was in charge of the search party, made a remark about this girl having rolled over on to the shirts, and asked the appellant whose they were. The appellant said he knew nothing about them: they the police) had brought...