‘Police trap – No need for corroboration’ – Full Court
DESPITE the fact that a magistrate in a private car for hire case in 1960 made no mention in his memorandum of reasons about unchallenged and unrebutted evidence, the Full Court nevertheless upheld the guilty decision.As a consequence the appeal by Sooknandan was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
In a prosecution for using a private car as a hire car, a police decoy gave evidence that he joined the car at Leonora when it already had four passengers. One of them left the car at Windsor Forest after giving the defendant some money, and later the decoy himself disembarked after paying the defendant 50 cents.
The evidence about the payment at Windsor Forest was unchallenged, but it was contended by the defendant that it has not been established that the payment was for a place in the car and that the evidence did not therefore disclose that the vehicle had been used for conveying passengers at separate fares stage by stage or stopping to pick up or set down passengers along the line of route, and that as the magistrate did not advert to this aspect of the matter in his memorandum or reasons for decisions it should not be assumed that he had in fact directed his attention to it.
The Full Court, constituted Chief Justice J. A Luckoo and H. B. S Bollers held: (i) in the case of a police trap there is no requirement that the evidence of the decoy should be corroborated. All that is necessary is that it should be acted upon with caution;
(ii) as a court of rehearing the Full Court is entitled to look at the specific findings of fact made by the magistrate together with other unchallenged and unrebutted evidence not adverted to by him in his memorandum of reasons for decision to see if the decision reached by him can be supported.
The court cited the case of Gonsalves vs Chairman of the Poor Law Commissioners, 1939, L. R. B. G. 68 said it was applicable to the Sooknandan case. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
J.O.F Haynes Q.C and E. A Romao, Senior Crown Counsel appeared for the appellant and the respondent respectively.
According to the judgment of the Court the appellant Sooknandan was convicted by the magistrate of the West Demeara Judicial District on a charge of using an unlicensed vehicle, contrary to Section 23 (1) of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 280, as provided by Section 20 (2) of the said Ordinance. From this conviction he has appealed.
The case for the prosecution was to the effect that on June 4, 1960 on the Vreed-en-Hoop, Public Road in the West Demerara Judicial District, the appellant used motor car no: PJ 231 for which there was in force a licence as a private car as a vehicle for carrying passengers for hire for reward at separate fares stage by stage or stopping to pick up or set down passengers along the line of route.
Such latter user was for a different purpose and different user from that for which the car was licensed. Under the schedule to the Ordinance the licence fee for the latter user is substantially higher than that for user as a private car.
The evidence on behalf of the prosecution disclosed that one Chapman (decoy) was given a marked dollar note by the police at Leonora. Chapman was given certain instructions by the police in consequence of whom he went to a spot on the public road at Leonora near to a gasoline station.
The defendant was driving the car east along the public road at Leonora and was stopped by Chapman who asked him how much he would charge to take him to Vreed-en-Hoop. The defendant replied “50 cents” and told Chapman to get into the car. There were at that time four other persons in the car. At Windsor Forest on the way to Vreed-en-Hoop. The car stopped and one of the four persons left the car after giving the defendant some money. The car was driven to Vreed-en-Hoop and at the junction of West Coast Demerara and West Bank Demerara roads Chapman disembarked and paid the defendant with the marked dollar note receiving back 50 cents from the defendant.
The three other persons remained in the car. As the appellant was about to drive off Cpl. Lewis and Police Constable McLean, who were in ambush, came up. At their request the appellant produced the marked dollar note.
The appellant stated that he had taken Chapman without charge and did not accept any money as a fare or servant from him. He also denied that he produced any money to the police.
The magistrate did not accept the defendant’s story and found that Chapman’s evidence was corroborated in material particulars to his satisfaction.
It is to be observed that in the case of a police trap there is no requirement that the evidence of the decoy should be corroborated. All that is necessary is that it should be acted upon with caution.
The Full Court judgment revealed: “In this case before us we are of the opinion that the evidence does support the decision of the magistrate. The appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence affirmed with costs to the respondent.”
By George Barclay