SPECIAL  Constabulary member Sandra Innis, who was jailed for five  years by Magistrate Priya Beharry-Sewnarine  for aiding and abetting another to traffic in narcotics, lost  her appeal in the Full Court Tuesday.

But being a first offender, she was granted a reduction in penalty from five years to four years.
The Full Court, constituted by Chief Justice Ian Chang and Justice Rishi Persaud, recommended that the time spent in prison awaiting trial in the court below and pending appeal to be considered as time served.
Nominal costs were given to the respondent Mavis Davis, Officer of CANU, in the sum of $20, 000.00
On the 7th  February 2007, the appellant, Sandra Innis, was found  guilty by Magistrate Priya Beharry-Sewnarine of having, on Sunday July 10, 2005, at the Cheddi Jagan International Airport,  Timehri, East Bank, Demerara, aided and abetted Nuddine Adonna Evans to traffic in 3 kilograms 236.5 grams of cocaine. She appealed.
According to the judgment, the undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant was a member of the Special Constabulary performing security functions at the Cheddi Jagan International Airport on Sunday, July 10, 2005.  So was CANU Officer, Mavis Davis. In the course of her duties, Davis approached outgoing passenger Nuddine Evans to pat-search her just after she had passed the security scanner.
In so doing, Davis had to go in front of the defendant who was closer to the passenger Evans.   Davis was then interrupted from proceeding to pat-search Evans by the appellant who told her ‘move in front of me before I kick yo’.
The appellant then proceeded to pat-search the bust, chest, waist and legs of Evans.  Evans then proceeded to the document security check point. Davis went up to Evans, identified herself to her, and told her that she would like to conduct a search of her person in the nearby female washroom. There, she pat-searched Evans in the same manner that the appellant had pat-searched her, and she felt something hard about her body. She then arrested her as a suspect for drug trafficking, took her to the CANU office at the airport and instructed  her to undress.
Evans complied.  Eight taped parcels (later found to contain 3 kilograms 236.5 grams of cocaine)  were found taped to her body.
On the July 15, 2005, the  appellant was charged with aiding and abetting Nuddine Evans to traffick in narcotics.
On the February 7, 2007, she was found guilty of the offence and was sentenced to five years imprisonment.  She was also fined $30,000.
According to the judgment, it does appear that the case proceeded on the premise that the fact that the appellant did search Evans and that in the process  of such a search, she did  or must  have felt something hard strapped to her body was sufficient  to fix her with knowledge that Evans was trafficking in a narcotic drug.
It is clear, the judgment pointed out, that the magistrate based the conviction of the appellant on the finding that the appellant “discovered” or “ought” to have discovered the parcels of cocaine on the person of Evans, and that she thereafter did  nothing to prevent her from proceeding.
The conviction was therefore based on a finding of a conscious omission on the part of the appellant to take positive action after she felt the hardness on the person of Evans.
But, even assuming that the appellant had discovered that Evans was trafficking in a narcotic  drug, it is doubtful whether her inactivity or omission  pointed unequivocally in the direction of a “shared common purpose” in contradistinction to a common purpose, since it cannot be concluded  that she and Evans were acting in concert in the sense that she must have agreed with Evans that she, as a security officer, would do nothing to interfere with the execution of Evans’ criminal enterprise.
The Chief Justice (ag), who delivered the judgment of the court, said that the court sees  no basis to disturb the finding  of guilt made by the Magistrate.  The conviction of the appellant is therefore affirmed.
While no arguments were advanced against the maximum five-year term of imprisonment, it does appear that the appellant was a first offender who was tempted to stray from the path of honest security service.
The court sees it fit and proper to reduce her sentence of imprisonment from five years to four   years – time spent in prison awaiting trial in the court below and pending appeal to be considered as time served.