IN 1981, Lennie Waldron appeared before Magistrate Hugh Hanoman and pleaded not guilty to a charge of break & enter and larceny. That magistrate subsequently died.On August 26, 1982, Magistrate Stanley Hardyal found Waldron guilty, in absentia, and sentenced him to the maximum of three years imprisonment. Feeling the sentence too harsh, Waldron took the matter to the Appeal Court.

But the Guyana Court of Appeal, constituted by Chancellor Victor Crane and Justices of Appeal Charles Fung-A-Fat and Frank Vieira saw things differently; they held that:
(i) Between the date on which the Appellant pleaded not guilty and when he was sentenced, at least four or five warrants had been issued, to all of which they were no returns of service. The Appellant had also received the relevant statements provided by the Act, for which he had signed on April 27, 1981, and he had received an additional statement on January 11, 1982, for which he had also signed. In response to the question whether an accused person had to plead over again before a subsequent magistrate , it seemed that once a plea was taken and recorded it was good for all intents and purposes until the matter was fully and finally determined;
(ii) The magistrate was not aware that the Appellant had had a previous conviction, but he nevertheless considered it a notorious fact that offences such as those committed by the Appellant were prevalent, and the Court could not say that the maximum sentence of three years imposed by him was harsh and unjust in the circumstances.
This being the case, the Court had no alternative but to dismiss the case, and affirm the conviction and sentence of the magistrate. In arriving at this decision, a maximum of six cases were referred to.
Mr. Maurice Haniff appeared for the Appellant, while Mr S.S.D. Insanally, Senior State Counsel appeared for the Respondent.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Vieira said:
“This is an appeal under the Administration of Justice Act, No. 21 of 1978, in relation to a conviction and sentence of three year’s imprisonment for Break and Enter and Larceny, contrary to Section 229 (a) of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act, Cap. 8:01, a hybrid offence under Section 61 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Act , Cap. 10:02, as repealed and re-enacted by Section 4 of Act 21 of 1978.
“The facts were short and quite simple. On Monday 1st December, 1980, Mary Hewit, an employee of Modern Optical Services, locked the doors and windows and properly secured the premises at Main and Pilot Streets, New Amsterdam.
“The following day, Phyllis Bandhu, who lives next door, saw the back door open about 7:15am and sent a message to Hewit, who came and the two women entered the building and observed that it was ransacked. At about 8:00am, the manageress, Faith Cipriani, came to work and saw the back door broken, and on checking inside the building discovered a quantity of articles, including 25 pairs of shoes or boots missing, all being the property of one Jose DaSilva. The matter was then reported to the police.
“On Wednesday, 10th December, 1980, a chauffeur by the name of Clifton Bennett was approached at his home by the Appellant, whom he knew well, and who offered to sell him a pair of boots, which he refused. The Appellant then left and came back with one Gibson, who lived on the lower flat, and said he wanted $40.00 for the boots.
“The two men then left, after Bennett had again refused to buy the boots, and returned later; and Gibson said he had borrowed $20.00, and Bennett then lent him the balance of $20.00, but retained the shoes or boots as security for the loan. About two to three days later, Gibson repaid the money and Bennett gave him back the pair of boots.
“On 9th January, 1981, Faith Cipriani went to the Central Police Station, New Amsterdam, where she identified a pair of boots by the marks, “Opt Products” and the country of manufacture, ‘Brazil’, and claimed same as the property of her employer, Jose DaSilva. This pair of boots was the very pair of boots that the Appellant tried to sell to Bennett.
“The magistratre, Mr. S. D. S. Hardyal, dealt with the matter, ex parte, found the Appellant guilty in his absence, and sentenced him to the maximum sentence he would award under the Act, as he considered the offence was a prevalent one.
“Would an accused person have to plead again before a subsequent magistrate? In our opinion, clearly not. It seems to us that once a plea is taken and recorded it is good for all intents and purposes until the matter is fully and finally determined.
“As regards the question of identification of the pair of Brazilian-made boots marked “Opt Produts” (Exhibit ‘A’), we are satisfied that there was sufficient prima facie evidence that that pair of boots or shoes was part and parcel of the 25 pairs missing from the premises of Modern Optical Services between 1st and 2nd December, 1980, and was in possession of the Appellant not more than eight days after the break-and-enter and larceny, thus bringing into play the doctrine of recent procession.
“The magistrate drew the inference, a most reasonable one, that the appellant was the thief, and concluded, inevitably, that he was the person who broke and entered the premises in question. It must be remembered that the matter proceeded ex parte. There was no cross-examination that might have weakened, or even destroyed the case for the prosecution including the question of identity.
“The question of sentence was argued before us but it was admitted that the Appellant has one previous conviction for a similar offence in 1972. The learned magistrate although, apparently, he did not have the conviction before him, nevertheless considered it a notorious fact that offences of this nature were prevalent, and we cannot say that the maximum sentence of three years imposed by him was harsh and unjust in all the circumstances.”
At this point, Chancellor Crane interjected: “This, then, is the decision of the Court. The appeal is dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the magistrate affirmed.”
To which Justice Fung-A-Fat replied: “I agree and have nothing to add.”