143,540 judgment pages 132,515 public-register pages 276,055 total pages

Derek Parke v Commissioner of Police

2003-03-11 · Grenada
Metadata
Collection
Court of Appeal
Country
Grenada
Case number
Judge
Key terms
Upstream post
18901
AKN IRI
/akn/ecsc/gd/coa/2003/judgment/derek-parke-v-commissioner-police/post-18901
PDF versions
  • 18901-derekparke_v_commissionerofpolice.pdf current
    2026-06-21 03:18:24.182839+00 · 19,632 B

Text

PDF: 2,495 chars / 393 words. WordPress: 2,399 chars / 392 words. Word overlap: 97.6%. Length ratio: 1.04. Audit: near equal punctuation or spacing (low). Token overlap: 99.7%.

GRENADA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL MAGISTERIAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1 OF 2003 BETWEEN: DEREK PARKE Appellant and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Respondent Before: His Lordship, The Hon. Sir Dennis Byron Chief Justice His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Albert Redhead Justice of Appeal His Lordship, The Hon. Mr. Ephraim Georges Justice of Appeal [Ag.] Appearances: Mr. Cajeton Hood for the Appellant Mr. Christopher Nelson for the Respondent ----------------------------------------------- 2003: March 11; September ------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT

[1]BYRON, C.J.: Derek Parke pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of an AKS rifle and 21 rounds of ammunition contrary to sections 20(1) of the Firearms Act and was summarily convicted and sentenced by the Magistrate to two(2) years imprisonment with forfeiture of the firearm and ammunition. Parke complains that the sentence was excessive.

[2]The background facts were simply that when the firearm and ammunition were found in a barrel in his home during a police raid, Parke told the police that he had had them since the “revo”. He has no previous convictions.

[3]The law on sentencing powers are set out in section 20(4)(a) “every person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable (a) on summary conviction, to a fine of not less than four thousand and not more than twenty thousand dollars and to imprisonment for not less than two and not more than five years”.

[4]Counsel for the appellant contended that the imposition of term of imprisonment was not mandatory, and the Magistrate failed to exercise a discretion on the appropriate sentence. He contended that in this case a term of two years imprisonment was excessive. The cases cited related to the application of custodial sentences.

[5]This case required an adjudication on the interpretation of the statutory provisions before we could consider whether a discretion was properly exercised.

[6]The wording of the section did not give counsel much wriggle room as the section clearly evinced a legislative intention to require the imposition of a financial and custodial punishment within the minimum and maximum levels prescribed. So long as those statutory provisions exist the court is bound to apply them.

[7]In the circumstances I could not rule that the sentence was excessive. The appeal is dismissed. Sir Dennis Byron Chief Justice I concur. Albert Redhead Justice of Appeal I concur.

Ephraim Georges

Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

GRENADA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL MAGISTERIAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1 OF 2003 BETWEEN: DEREK PARKE Appellant and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Respondent Before: His Lordship, The Hon. Sir Dennis Byron Chief Justice His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Albert Redhead Justice of Appeal His Lordship, The Hon. Mr. Ephraim Georges Justice of Appeal [Ag.] Appearances: Mr. Cajeton Hood for the Appellant Mr. Christopher Nelson for the Respondent 2003: March 11; September JUDGMENT

[1]BYRON, C.J.: Derek Parke pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of an AKS rifle and 21 rounds of ammunition contrary to sections 20(1) of the Firearms Act and was summarily convicted and sentenced by the Magistrate to two(2) years imprisonment with forfeiture of the firearm and ammunition. Parke complains that the sentence was excessive.

[2]The background facts were simply that when the firearm and ammunition were found in a barrel in his home during a police raid, Parke told the police that he had had them since the “revo”. He has no previous convictions.2

[3]The law on sentencing powers are set out in section 20(4)(a) “every person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable (a) on summary conviction, to a fine of not less than four thousand and not more than twenty thousand dollars and to imprisonment for not less than two and not more than five years”.

[4]Counsel for the appellant contended that the imposition of term of imprisonment was not mandatory, and the Magistrate failed to exercise a discretion on the appropriate sentence. He contended that in this case a term of two years imprisonment was excessive. The cases cited related to the application of custodial sentences.

[5]This case required an adjudication on the interpretation of the statutory provisions before we could consider whether a discretion was properly exercised.

[6]The wording of the section did not give counsel much wriggle room as the section clearly evinced a legislative intention to require the imposition of a financial and custodial punishment within the minimum and maximum levels prescribed. So long as those statutory provisions exist the court is bound to apply them.

[7]In the circumstances I could not rule that the sentence was excessive. The appeal is dismissed. Sir Dennis Byron Chief Justice I concur. Albert Redhead Justice of Appeal I concur. Ephraim Georges Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

PDF extraction

GRENADA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL MAGISTERIAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1 OF 2003 BETWEEN: DEREK PARKE Appellant and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Respondent Before: His Lordship, The Hon. Sir Dennis Byron Chief Justice His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Albert Redhead Justice of Appeal His Lordship, The Hon. Mr. Ephraim Georges Justice of Appeal [Ag.] Appearances: Mr. Cajeton Hood for the Appellant Mr. Christopher Nelson for the Respondent ----------------------------------------------- 2003: March 11; September ------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT

[1]BYRON, C.J.: Derek Parke pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of an AKS rifle and 21 rounds of ammunition contrary to sections 20(1) of the Firearms Act and was summarily convicted and sentenced by the Magistrate to two(2) years imprisonment with forfeiture of the firearm and ammunition. Parke complains that the sentence was excessive.

[2]The background facts were simply that when the firearm and ammunition were found in a barrel in his home during a police raid, Parke told the police that he had had them since the “revo”. He has no previous convictions.

[3]The law on sentencing powers are set out in section 20(4)(a) “every person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable (a) on summary conviction, to a fine of not less than four thousand and not more than twenty thousand dollars and to imprisonment for not less than two and not more than five years”.

[4]Counsel for the appellant contended that the imposition of term of imprisonment was not mandatory, and the Magistrate failed to exercise a discretion on the appropriate sentence. He contended that in this case a term of two years imprisonment was excessive. The cases cited related to the application of custodial sentences.

[5]This case required an adjudication on the interpretation of the statutory provisions before we could consider whether a discretion was properly exercised.

[6]The wording of the section did not give counsel much wriggle room as the section clearly evinced a legislative intention to require the imposition of a financial and custodial punishment within the minimum and maximum levels prescribed. So long as those statutory provisions exist the court is bound to apply them.

[7]In the circumstances I could not rule that the sentence was excessive. The appeal is dismissed. Sir Dennis Byron Chief Justice I concur. Albert Redhead Justice of Appeal I concur.

Ephraim Georges

Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

WordPress

GRENADA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL MAGISTERIAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1 OF 2003 BETWEEN: DEREK PARKE Appellant and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Respondent Before: His Lordship, The Hon. Sir Dennis Byron Chief Justice His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Albert Redhead Justice of Appeal His Lordship, The Hon. Mr. Ephraim Georges Justice of Appeal [Ag.] Appearances: Mr. Cajeton Hood for the Appellant Mr. Christopher Nelson for the Respondent 2003: March 11; September JUDGMENT

[1]BYRON, C.J.: Derek Parke pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of an AKS rifle and 21 rounds of ammunition contrary to sections 20(1) of the Firearms Act and was summarily convicted and sentenced by the Magistrate to two(2) years imprisonment with forfeiture of the firearm and ammunition. Parke complains that the sentence was excessive.

[2]The background facts were simply that when the firearm and ammunition were found in a barrel in his home during a police raid, Parke told the police that he had had them since the “revo”. He has no previous convictions.2

[3]The law on sentencing powers are set out in section 20(4)(a) “every person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable (a) on summary conviction, to a fine of not less than four thousand and not more than twenty thousand dollars and to imprisonment for not less than two and not more than five years”.

[4]Counsel for the appellant contended that the imposition of term of imprisonment was not mandatory, and the Magistrate failed to exercise a discretion on the appropriate sentence. He contended that in this case a term of two years imprisonment was excessive. The cases cited related to the application of custodial sentences.

[5]This case required an adjudication on the interpretation of the statutory provisions before we could consider whether a discretion was properly exercised.

[6]The wording of the section did not give counsel much wriggle room as the section clearly evinced a legislative intention to require the imposition of a financial and custodial punishment within the minimum and maximum levels prescribed. So long as those statutory provisions exist the court is bound to apply them.

[7]In the circumstances I could not rule that the sentence was excessive. The appeal is dismissed. Sir Dennis Byron Chief Justice I concur. Albert Redhead Justice of Appeal I concur. Ephraim Georges Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

Processing runs
RunStartedStatusMethodParagraphs
17777 2026-06-21 18:01:14.67984+00 ok pymupdf_layout_text 10
8439 2026-06-21 08:21:07.992992+00 ok pymupdf_text 29