Farara v Blaize

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: High Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Lewis, J.
• Judgment Date: 04 February 1959
• Neutral Citation: AG 1959 HC 2
• Docket Number: Magisterial Appeal No. 4 of 1958
• Date: 04 February 1959

Windward and Leeward Islands Supreme Court

Lewis, J.

Magisterial Appeal No. 4 of 1958

Farara

and

Blaize

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Traffic offence — Vehicles and Road Traffic Ordinance, No. 5 of 1946

Facts: The sole issue for determination was whether the evidence supported the appellant's conviction of driving without due care.

Held: The Magistrate's finding will only be disturbed if based on the evidence, it is unreasonable. Given the evidence there was no reason to disturb the Magistrates findings.

Lewis, J.

1 The appellant was convicted by the Magistrate for District “A” on the 25th day of September, 1958 of driving a motor vehicle on Market Street without due care and attention, contrary to section 53 of the Vehicles and Road Traffic Ordinance, No. 5 of 1946, and fined $20. He appealed against his conviction on October 2nd 1958 and in his notice of appeal the appellant gave as his sole ground of appeal “that the conviction is against the weight of evidence.”

2 I am satisfied that there is evidence on which the magistrate could have come to the conclusion to which he did, and I would have dismissed the appeal immediately after I had heard the arguments of counsel but for the fact that I wished to make certain observations on the wording of the appellant's ground of appeal and as to the duties of this Court sitting as a Court of appeal from the decisions of magistrates in criminal matters, as there appears to be some misapprehension as to the exact function of this Court in such appeals.

3 Section 175(1) of The Magistrates Code of, Procedure Act, Chapter 61 (referred to hereinafter as “the Act”) provides that where an appeal is by motion the appellant shall serve a notice of appeal on the magistrate and the other party of his intention to appeal, and that the notice shall contain his reasons for appeal. Subsection (2) provides that the notice may set forth as grounds of appeal the several reasons mentioned therein and no other. Among the reasons listed in this subsection as a ground of appeal is that set forth in paragraph (i) which reads: “that the decision is unreasonable or cannot he supported having regard to the evidence.”

4 Counsel for the appellant admitted that he was challenging the magistrate's decision on the ground that there was no evidence to justify the verdict. He also said he was questioning the magistrate's findings of fact on the ground that they were unreasonable and therefore the decision ought not to be allowed to stand. If this was his intention, then it was his duty to allege and show, if he could, in the words of the Act, that the verdict is “unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.”

5 In Aladesuru and the Queen [1956] A.C. 49, the West African Court of Appeal in a criminal appeal in Nigeria struck out one of an appellant's grounds of appeal which alleged that the “judgment is against the weight of evidence.” The section of the Nigerian law under which the appellant brought his appeal follows the language of the English Criminal Appeal Act 1907 which is that “The Court of appeal on any such appeal (from the Supreme Court) against conviction shall allow the appeal if they think that the verdict should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.” It will be observed that the reason for appeal mentioned in section 175 (2)(i) of the Act is in language similar to that of the English Criminal Appeal Act and it follows that the decision of the Privy Council in the West African case quoted above is absolutely binding on this court as it is a decision on a section of an enactment which corresponds exactly to a provision of the local law.

6 In Aladesuru's case the West African Court of Appeal had in that case granted the appellant leave to appeal on grounds, which included the ground of appeal it subsequently struck out. The application for leave to appeal was treated as a notice of appeal and when the appeal came on for hearing the Court struck out the ground of appeal, which alleged that the “judgment is against the weight of evidence.”

7 On appeal to the Privy Council, it was contended for the appellants, inter alia, (1) that the action of the West African Court of Appeal in striking out this ground of appeal amounted to a denial of justice, and that in any event the appellants should have granted leave to amend this ground, and (2) that the words of the English Statute viz. that “the verdict should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence “

8 On appeal to the Privy Council, it was contended for the appellants, inter...