Hamdi-Romanica (Shayma) v R

Extracted by the canary pipeline from the PDF (PyMuPDF for born-digital pages, vision OCR for scanned ones). Page markers and other machine artifacts are scrubbed for reading; the stored text is never modified. Hover a paragraph for its ¶ permalink. Selectable — Cmd/Ctrl-C copies whatever you've highlighted.

In the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands

Cause No. SCA 0024 OF 2020 (WAS SC 2703 OF 2019)

Between

Hamdi-Romanica (Shayma)

- v -

Judgment delivered 2021-Mar-10

```html IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CRIMINAL SIDE SCA #: 24/2020 (Case #02703/2019) (Driving whilst impaired + failing to keep lights illuminated) SHAYMA HAMDI-ROMANICA REGINA Appearances： Mr. James Stenning for the Appellant Ms. KerriAnn Gillies of the ODPP for the Respondent/Crown Before： Justice Roger Chapple (Actg.) Heard： 10th March 2021 HEADNOTE Criminal Law - Appeal against Convictions from the Summary Court to the Grand Court - Driving Whilst Impaired - Failing to keep lights illuminated - Section 26 of the Summary Court Jurisdiction Act， 2019 - Section 175 of the Criminal Procedure Code. JUDGMENT ON APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTIONS ```
```html 1. As a result of a traffic stop in the early hours of 3rd August 2019, this Appellant was 2 charged with three offences, as follows: 4 i. Driving under the influence of alcohol contrary to s.82(1)(a)(ii) of the 5 Traffic Act 2011 7 ii. Driving whilst impaired, contrary to s.82(1)(a)(i) of the Traffic Act 2011 9 iii. Failing to keep lights illuminated at night contrary to s.93(1)(q) of the 10 Traffic Act 2011 11 12 2. After reviewing the case, the Crown, at a hearing on 4th March 2020, offered no 13 evidence on the first charge, but indicated that it intended to proceed upon the 14 remaining charges. 15 16 3. Following a Summary Court trial on 27th October 2020, this Appellant was found 17 guilty of both charges. On 25th November 2020, she was sentenced to fines totalling 18 five hundred and fifty dollars ($550) and disqualified from driving for 12 months. 19 She now appeals to this Court against her convictions upon a number of grounds, set 20 out in a “Memorandum of Appeal” dated 16th February 2021, and amended on 24th 21 February, supplemented by a file of email correspondence. This Court also has the 22 advantage of comprehensive and helpful written submissions from Ms Kerri-Ann 23 Gillies, now appearing for the Respondent. (Ms. Gillies did not appear at the lower 24 court). 25 27 appear from the 26 4. Tumstances in 27 hearing. I now set out those agreed facts in full: Judgment on Appeal against Convictions. SCA 24/20. Shayma Hamdi-Romanica v R. Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). Date: 24.03.2021 Page 2 of 12

On August 3, 2019 at about 12:40 am Ms Hamdi-Romanica was driving a Mini Cooper registration number 177 348 along Esterley Tibbetts Highway.

She was travelling behind a marked police vehicle driven by PC Nkrumah Morgan and was heading towards the Butterfield roundabout.

PC Morgan stopped Ms Hamdi-Romanica’s vehicle by Plaza Venezia. She was the sole occupant in the Mini Cooper.

PC Morgan arrested Ms Hamdi-Romanica on suspicion of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. She was taken to the Detention Centre.

At the Detention Centre PC Kenville Holder requested a specimen of breath from Ms Hamdi-Romanica. She provided a specimen of breath at 3:46 a.m. and the result was .104%. All the procedural steps were followed and recorded by PC Holder when he conducted the test using the Intoxilyzer 9000.

Ms Hamdi-Romanica admitted to PC Holder that she consumed alcohol prior to driving her motor vehicle.

Three witnesses gave evidence at the Summary Court trial: PC Morgan, PC Holder and the Appellant.

PC Morgan hen he stc

PC Morgan hen
```html 1 him. PC Morgan noted that the vehicle was swerving. Once he had stopped Ms 2 Hamdi-Romanica, he noted that she was: 3 “... talkative and freely admitted that she had a couple of drinks....her eyes were 4 glossy (sic) and when she exited the Mini Cooper, she was unsteady on her feet.” 5 6 7 8 7. The Appellant’s evidence was summarised by the Magistrate as follows: 9 10 “The defendant’s case is that she went out that night with friends at Craft. She 11 was there until closing time. She said she had 2 vodka drinks and ate some wings. 12 She left after closing and stopped for fries at Burger Shack. She denied her 13 headlights were off. Any swerving, she said may be as a result of using her phone 14 to do a Face Book (sic) posting. She said she was not slurring but it was the 15 discomfort of recent braces which made her have a lisp. She denied she was 16 unsteady on her feet [saying it was] because of how low the car was and the 17 heels she had on...... She was adamant that she was not impaired because she 18 is Irish and has a high alcohol tolerance and she is a responsible mother. If she 19 felt she was impaired she would not have driven.” 20 21 22 8. On the face of it then, the case turned upon the view taken by the Magistrate of 23 the credibility of PC Morgan on the one hand and the Appellant on the other and the 24 inferences properly to be drawn from the evidence the Magistrate was sure about. 25 26 9. The Magistrate made clear that she accepted the evidence of PC Morgan - stating in 27 her Ruling: 28 29 “He is a very experienced officer with no reason to pull over the defendant if he 30 had not observed the headlights were off and she was swerving.” 31 32 33 10. Turning more particularly to the charge of driving whilst impaired, the Magistrate 34 noted: 35 “The charge very much rests on the observations of the officer and if the court 36 38 App Magistrate 37 accepts th as supportintstandard.” 11. her finding npaired, te d 38 ellant wah 39 attention to various features of the evidence which she accepted, including: 40 Judgment on Appeal against Convictions. SCA 24/20. Shayma Hamdi-Romanica v R. Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). Date: 24.03.2021 Page 4 of 12 ```
```html 1 a. “The admission of drinking that night - whether it was 2 as the defendant stated 2 or more”; 3 4 b. The smell of alcohol; 5 6 c. “Her slurred speech - I reject this was because of her braces”; 7 8 d. “Her glossy (sic) eyes.” 9 10 e. Her unsteadiness on her feet, about which the Magistrate stated: “... I reject was 11 as a result of the heels she had on.” 12 13 f. The fact of driving without headlights and swerving. 14 15 12. I mentioned above that three (3) witnesses gave evidence before the Magistrate. The 16 third witness, Police Constable Holder, is only referred to once, in passing, in the 17 Magistrate’s ruling when the Magistrate stated: 18 19 20 “He [PC Morgan] was present when PC347 Kenval Holder carried out the 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Intoxylzer (sic) test which read .104%.” 33 13. His evidence is not otherwise referred to or noted, yet according to Mr Stenning, 34 who represented the Appellant both at the Summary Court and at this appeal, PC 35 Holder, when cross-examined, gave evidence which supported the Appellant’s case 36 and detracted from the evidence given by his colleague PC Morgan. 37 14. This court does not have the advantage of any separate record or note of the evidence 38 given at the court below from the Magistrate. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745</
```html 1 “glossy (sic) eyes”，nor that she was unsteady on her feet. Had he observed any of 2 these features，he would have noted them in the Intoxilyzer pro forma he completed1. 3 Under the heading “Observations made (slurred speech，smell of intoxicating liquor 4 etc.)” PC Holder has noted only “smell of intoxicant.” 5 16. It may be that the apparent inconsistency between PC Holder and PC Morgan can be 7 reconciled. According to the agreed facts，three (3) hours elapsed between the 8 Appellant being stopped by PC Morgan at 12.40am and her giving a specimen of 9 breath at 3：46a.m.一allowing her time to sober up. However，as was pointed out in 10 the course of this appeal，it may be that the facts agreed by both parties as to the time 11 of driving/being stopped are wrong，since PC Morgan’s notebook entry2 records the 12 time of arrest as 2：45am. 13 17. Be that as it may，this was clearly evidence which supported the defence case. Given 15 the absence of any notes of evidence the Magistrate took during the course of the 16 hearing，or any reference to this evidence in her ruling，it is impossible for this court 17 to know what the Magistrate made of this apparently unchallenged evidence or how 18 she resolved the apparent inconsistency. It is not for this Court to，as it might be，fill 19 in the gaps. 20 21 18. The Magistrate was of course under a duty，pursuant to s.26 of the Summary Court 22 Jurisdiction Act，2019 to ensure： 23 24 25 “... that a proper record is maintained of the proceedings and that the oral 26 27 28 evidence given before the court，or so much thereof as (s)he considers material own in writinelf or by a cl en.” is taken dog either by hurt under his supervisio ims 1 Summary Court Exhibit #4 2 Summary Court Exhibit #3 Judgment on Appeal against Convictions. SCA 24/20. Shayma Hamdi-Romanica v R. Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). Date: 24.03.2021 Page 6 of 12 ```
```html 1 19. Section 175 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2019 provides that the appellant, 2 having complied with various requirements: 3 “... shall be entitled to receive with all convenient speed a copy of the evidence 4 taken by the court.” 5 6 7 20. In this case, whilst the learned Magistrate’s ruling was provided, “a copy of the 8 evidence taken by the court” was not. 9 10 21. In answer to Mr Stenning’s enquiry, the Court wrote, in an email dated 12th January: 11 12 “The Magistrate has indicated that there are no transcript/notes of evidence as 13 the ruling incorporates the court’s notes.” 14 15 22. The assertion that there are no notes of evidence does not bear close analysis as, in 16 order to permit incorporation, there must surely have been notes in the first place. 17 18 23. Be that as it may, it must be taken from that reply that the ruling incorporates all 19 notes of the evidence that the learned Magistrate took in accordance with her duty 20 pursuant to s.26 - “of the oral evidence given...or so much thereof as (s)he considers 21 material.” 22 23 24. It would serve no useful purpose at all were the ruling simply to contain selections 24 from her notes of the evidence. It must then follow that the Magistrate did not 25 consider that PC Holder’s evidence, apparently supporting the Appellant’s case, was 26 material. 27 At paragraph 11 of her ru graph 11(d): Ma of fact, in 28 At paragraphling, the 29 his at para gistrate nong uding 30 31 Judgment on Appeal against Convictions. SCA 24/20. Shayma Hamdi-Romanica v R. Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). Date: 24.03.2021 Page 7 of 12 ```
```html 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 “Apart from the observations of the officer, the agreed facts and the evidence led accepts (sic) that there was a reading of .104%. If there was an argument on the accuracy of the machine - which there was not - at the very least it supports drinking which is very much pointed to being legally impaired.” 26. What does not appear in the ruling is the explanation given to the Magistrate as to why the prosecution had decided, after review, not to proceed with the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol. I was told by Mr Stenning, and of course accept what he says, that at the start of the hearing, an email dated 4th March was handed to the Magistrate in which Mr Walcom, Crown Counsel said this: “I indicated that the charge of DUI was to be withdrawn or no evidence offered based on the reading of .104% as this is within the margin of error of plus/- .05%.” 27. Reference to this margin of error was made in the original agreed facts but deleted, since the margin of error was then erroneously said to be plus/- .005%, rather than .05%. I should add for the sake of completeness that the legal limit is .1%. 28. It follows then that the prosecution could not, and did not, seek to establish, that the Appellant was driving having consumed alcohol in such quantity that the portion of it in her breath exceeded the prescribed limit, albeit, when applying the margin of error most favourably, only by .01%. The fact - and it must be taken to be fact - that she was within the prescribed limit, is an obvious point in her favour and plainly relevant to a proper assessment of whether she had consumed alcohol in such quantity (my emphasis) that her ability to drive was impaired. 29. As the editors of Wilkinson’s Road Traffic Offences, 29th edition at paragraph 4-92 note: 3 Paragraph 6 Judgment on Appeal against Convictions. SCA 24/20. Shayma Hamdi-Romanica v R. Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). Date: 24.03.2021 Page 8 of 12 ```
```html 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 27 28 29 30. Again, since it is not mentioned by the learned Magistrate in her ruling, this court is
```html 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 One reason for this is that an appeal is not by way of re-hearing, unless the Grand Court so directs, but has to be decided from the record. It follows that if the Grand Court is to be able to determine what led the Magistrate to his verdict, not only must the record be complete but some form of reasoned judgement is desirable. Without a proper record of proceedings and without a record of the reasons which led the Magistrate to his decision it is extremely difficult for the court charged with hearing an appeal to determine whether the decision of the Magistrate has arrived at properly." 34. In Smith & Ebanks, there was no record of the proceedings beyond the bald verdict and sentence. I make clear that here, there is very much more assistance provided by the Magistrate in her ruling. That said, given the absence of any reference to two clear and obvious points supporting the defence case, this court finds itself in the same position as Collett CJ, that is to say, 35. In the 30 years or so since Smith & Ebanks, practice and requirements have moved on substantially. It is a principle of natural and open justice that a party to proceedings is entitled to know why evidence apparently supporting their case had been rejected. 36. This appeal against convictions is accordingly allowed, the convictions are thus quashed, and, the case is remitted to the Summary Court for re-trial. 37. Whilst this Court of course expresses no view upon the eventual outcome of this case, it cannot conclude on the information available to this Court, as Ms Gillies urged, that the convictions are safe. FURTHER FE Before leaving this case, there is one further feature to which fort Stefining draws to the Court’s attention, with which I should deal. It is clear from email correspondence Judgment on Appeal against Convictions. SCA 24/20. Shayma Hamdi-Romanica v R. Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). Date: 24.03.2021 Page 10 of 12 ```
```html 1 that prior to this Summary Court trial, the Appellant was particularly concerned to 2 ensure that there was a full and reliable record of the proceedings. This Court is 3 bound to observe that the way in which the Summary Court dealt with those requests 4 was, to say the least of it, unfortunate. 5 6 39. On 14th July 2020, Mr Stenning submitted a completed pro-forma supplied by the 7 court entitled “Cayman Courts request for video/audio.” Mr Shardon Nelson, IT 8 Analyst replied, on 16th July: 9 10 11 “This recording will be sent after it has been recorded and the Judge or 12 13 40. Subsequently, Mr Nelson wrote on 20th July: 14 15 16 “The SC#2703/19 cannot be recorded as I was told that the traffic matters are 17 18 19 not recorded. It was stated that this can be found in the practice directions.” 20 21 41. On further enquiry from Mr Stenning, Mr Nelson added that this “information came 22 23 24 from the Chief Magistrate.” 25 26 27 42. Thereafter Mr Stenning wrote: 28 29 30 31 43. The response from the Personal Assistant to the Magistrates, on 21st July was as follows: fur traffic trial request for a apher for a privately funded ided sten a i summary court before the Hon. Magistrate Hernandez has been denied.” Judgment on Appeal against Convictions. SCA 24/20. Shayma Hamdi-Romanica v R. Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). Date: 24.03.2021 Page 11 of 12 ```
```html 1 44. Mr Stenning, not unreasonably, asked, "Respectfully, may I have reasons (the legal basis) for the denial?" The peremptory response, on 21st July, was, and I quote in full, "The approval is up to the sitting Magistrate. Regards." 2 45. For my part, I am sorry that a litigant before the Court was treated in this way. If apparently reasonable requests are to be refused, then reasons should be given. It is difficult to see why a request for a zoom recording - entirely common-place these days - should be refused. If there was good reason, the courtesy of an explanation should be provided. The email exchange in this case does nothing to foster or promote open justice or enhance the reputation of the Court. 3 46. The irony of the Court's refusal to allow a recording of this trial will not be lost on those reading this judgment, given the reasons for the Court's decision to remit the case for re-trial. 18 Dated this the 24th March 2021 ``` ```latex \documentclass{article} \usepackage{geometry} \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{hyperref} \usepackage{amsmath} \begin{table}[h] \centering \begin{tabular}{|p{1cm}|p{1cm}|p{15cm}|} \hline 1 & 44. & Mr Stenning, not unreasonably, asked, "Respectfully, may I have reasons (the legal basis) for the denial?" The peremptory response, on 21st July, was, and I quote in full, "The approval is up to the sitting Magistrate. Regards." \\ \hline 2 & 45. & For my part, I am sorry that a litigant before the Court was treated in this way. If apparently reasonable requests are to be refused, then reasons should be given. It is difficult to see why a request for a zoom recording - entirely common-place these days - should be refused. If there was good reason, the courtesy of an explanation should be provided. The email exchange in this case does nothing to foster or promote open justice or enhance the reputation of the Court. \\ \hline 3 & 46. & The irony of the Court's refusal to allow a recording of this trial will not be lost on those reading this judgment, given the reasons for the Court's decision to remit the case for re-trial. \\ \hline 18 & Dated this the 24th March 2021 & \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} \begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{logo.png} \caption{Acting Judge of the Grand Court} \end{figure} \begin{flushright} \textbf{Justice Roger Chapple} \\ Acting Judge of the Grand Court \end{flushright} \begin{flushleft} Judgment on Appeal against Convictions. SCA 24/20. Shayma Hamdi-Romanica v R. Coram: Chapple J. (Actg.). \\ Date: 24.03.2021 \\ Page 12 of 12 \end{flushleft}

Cause Number	SCA 0024 OF 2020 (WAS SC 2703 OF 2019)
Court	Grand Court
Judgment Date	2021-Mar-10
Subject	Criminal Law- Appeal against Convictions from the Summary Court to the Grand Court- Driving Whilst Impaired- Failing to keep lights illuminated- Section 26 of the Summary Court Jurisdiction Act, 2019- Section 175 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Category	Criminal
Filename (current)	45VK7TP3LZ831F770A1866296BD72414D75DBA166B5CDFFBD982.pdf
File MD5	8f2c025f53ae0b14d9ae60e4468ffe49
Source pipeline	csv

Hamdi-Romanica (Shayma) v R

Processing-run history (1)