The King v Darien Isacc

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Judge: Smith, J.
• Judgment Date: 06 October 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J1006-1
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO.ANUHCR2023/0062
• Court: High Court (Antigua)

Between:

The King

and

Darien Isaac

[2025] ECSC J1006-1

CLAIM NO.ANUHCR2023/0062

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Appearances:

Mrs. Shannon Jones Gittens for the Crown

Mr. Lawrence Daniel for the Defendant

DECISION

Background

Smith, J.

1 The defendant is facing one count on the indictment filed September 2024. The indictment's particulars read as follows “Darien Isaac on 17 ^th June 2020 at Deep Water Harbour in the parish of Saint John in Antigua and Barbuda, unlawfully imported a controlled drug weighing more than 5 kilograms to wit 41lbs of cannabis.”

Jurisdiction

2 The trial was a judge alone trial or a bench trial under the jurisdiction of the criminal proceedings (trial by judge alone Act no7 of 2024. The charge on the indictment was mandated for trial before a single judge). As with all bench trials the judge is the trier of all facts and the law. Many of the directions used in a jury trial are also used by the judge in a judge alone trial.

Elements of the Offence

3 The elements of the offence of drug trafficking are as follows:-

• a. The defendant knew that cannabis was contained in the fridge. The Crown must show that at the time he knew or had knowledge of the contents in the door compartment of the fridge. In this case the defendant denied any knowledge of the cannabis.

• b. That the defendant imported the controlled drug into the state of Antigua and Barbuda

• c. The controlled substance was indeed cannabis and that it weighed 41lbs.

The Actus Reus

4 The actus reus of the offence is that the defendant unlawfully imported the controlled drug. The Crown marshalled evidence to show that the shipment came into the island in the defendant's name. An employee of Tropical Shipping testified that on 15 ^th July 2020 a vessel arrived at the Deep-Water Harbour and the defendant was notified of its arrival. The Bill of Lading was prepared and given to the defendant, however on the following day he requested that the information be changed from DTAC Appliances and Wholesale Enterprise to Darien Isaac.

5 Secondly, it was the defendant who attended at the Deep-Water Harbour with the Bill of Lading to collect the appliances. Customs Officer Dequane Thomas testified that he is a certified canine handler. On the 17 ^th June he attended at the Deep Water Harbour and inspected the shipment that had arrived in the name of the defendant. It was his testimony that he smelt the strong aroma of cannabis. He also indicated that the dog started to behave in a way that indicated something was suspicious in the shipment. Officer Decastro also corroborated the testimony of Officer Thomas in relation to the reaction of the dog and the strong aroma of cannabis. It was this officer who removed the inner panel of the fridges and he testified that he saw a quantitly of vacuumed sealed packages containing a bushy substance that resembled cannabis. Under cross examination he established where he saw the defendant standing in the warehouse near to the customs area. The investigating officer Samuel Tonge indicated that he was assigned as lead investigator by ASP Chambers. It was his testimony that upon arrival at the harbour he had conversations with the customs officers, canine personnel, and the defendant. He also perused the Bill of Lading, spoke to the defendant, and examined the consignment. He used a knife to pierce the fridge and found cannabis and cautioned the defendant. The defendant at this point indicated that the shipment was sent by a Desmond Farrell and said that the “consignment is mine, everything is mine”.

6 Thirdly, the police analyst tested the controlled substance by taking samples and prepared a report which indicated that the substance found in the appliances was indeed cannabis.

Mens Rea

7 The Court now turns to the mesn rea of this offence. The Crown has indicated that the defendant knew exactly what was contained in the appliances and that he had knowledge of the controlled substance.

Questions for the Court to decide

8 Did the defendant have knowledge and control of the drug? The evidence is that he had a business and a business certificate to bring in appliances. He had several businesses registered and involved in the sale of appliances. One witness said she bought an appliance for her mother, imported by the defendant, paid for, and delivered. This was the testimony of Mowada Isaac. The Crown has established that the defendant imported and distributed appliances. The Court is guided by the Jamaican case of Brian Bernal and Christopher Moore vs R1 where there was cannabis concealed in tins purported to contain pineapple juice. In that case it was stated that where the trial of a criminal charge involved proof of knowledge of possession of a prohibited substance which was concealed within a container it was necessary for the prosecution to satisfy the court that the defendant knew that he had the container and that the prohibited substance was in the container. The evidence to establish such knowledge will depend on the circumstances of the case and the inferences which can properly be drawn from the facts proved.

9 What the Crown had to show was that the defendant had constructive knowledge meaning that he is deemed to have had knowledge of the contents in the fridge. It is essentially knowledge imputed to a person based on what they should have known if they had exercised reasonable care or diligence. In this case the Crown has adduced evidence that the shipment was in his name. The Court has looked at the testimony of the employee of Tropical Shipping. Her testimony supported the inference that the defendant knew exactly what was in the shipment which arrived in his company's name and which he later changed to his name.

10 In the case of The Queen vs Maduro2 a case emanating from the ECSC Court of Appeal it was held that “ A person is in possession of a controlled drug if that person has it in his custody or control with knowledge that the thing is in his custody or control. Although the person does not have the drug under his or her physical control, that person may still be in constructive possession of it. It was therefore open to the jury to believe that Mr. Maduro could have possessed the two bags of drugs without having physical custody of them or the boat from which they were recovered”.

Credibility of the witnesses

11 In assessing the credibility of a witness, in general, the tribunal of fact will consider the witness's knowledge of the facts to which he testifies, his demeanour, his veracity, his integrity, any interest he may have in the case, and any bias or partiality towards a party to the proceedings. It is open to the tribunal of fact to accept all that a witness has said, if satisfied that the witness has been truthful. It is also open to the tribunal of fact to reject the testimony of a witness whom they do not believe in part or in whole, if satisfied that the witness has lied in part or on vital issues. The Court paid attention to all of the Crown witnesses in particular the defendant and his witness.

Good Character Direction

12 The defendant has no previous convictions and appears before the Court as a man who is of good character. This means that I am are to weigh this fact in the favour of the defendant. Good character is not a defence to the charges but it is relevant to my consideration of the case in two ways. First, the defendant has given evidence. His good character is a positive feature of the defendant which the court should take into account when considering whether I accept what he told me. Secondly, the fact that the defendant has not offended in the past may make it less likely that he acted as is now alleged against him.

13 However, what weight should be given to the defendant's good character and the extent to which it assists on the facts of this particular case are for you to decide. In making that assessment I may take account of everything I have heard about him.

Lies Direction

14 In the interview with the police, the defendant's veracity was put to the test. It was clearly established that he would tell lies and give evasive answers to advance his own ends. The police interview with the defendant has shown that he was gave very evasive answers. At question 14 when asked where he got his appliances from, he said — a warehouse.

• 1. Question 16 — do you get your appliances from Desmond Farrell? – He answered — not really.

• 2. Question 18 — who else do you get appliances from in Canada? — He answered — no one just the warehouse.

• 3...