Shane Edward Connor v R

¶ ```html IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2009 SCA No. 32/07 C# 2206/04 BETWEEN: SHANE EDWARD CONNOR Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE: THE RT. HON. SIR JOHN CHADWICK P. THE HON. MR. JUSTICE MOTTLEY J.A. THE HON. MR. JUSTICE VOS J.A. Reasons for Judgment delivered orally on 2 September 2009 APPEARANCES: I.P. for the Appellant Ms. K. Gunn for the Respondent ```
```html 1 THEIR LORDSHIPS' RULING 2 3 Chadwick P. 4 5 On 22 October 2007 the appellant, Shane 6 Connor, was convicted in the Summary Court 7 after trial of the offence of threatening 8 violence. He was sentenced to twelve months' 9 imprisonment. 10 The offence, which had been committed as 11 long ago as 8 March 2004, was said to consist 12 of a threatening phone call to his then wife, 13 Iesha Connor. He was alleged to have said to 14 her: "I'm going to pick up my gun and kill 15 you." The Magistrate, after hearing the 16 evidence, both of the accused and of Mrs. Iesha 17 Connor, found that charge proved. She said 18 this: 19 "While he had no burden to 20 discharge, I must state that I 21 did not 22 accept and not use 23 the words alleged. In the 24 context of all his testimony, 25 including his admissions, I ```
didn't find his assertions credible. Having considered all of the evidence in the matter, I found that I preferred the evidence of Mrs. Connor on this point. I found as a fact that the defendant used the words described while speaking to Iesha Connor on the phone on March 8th 2004." At the time when the phone call took place a police officer, DC Sandra Bennett, was with Mrs. Connor. Her evidence was that Mrs. Connor had handed the phone to her. She had listened for a while. She heard somebody speaking, but she could not understand everything that he was saying. He sounded agitated and angry, but -- as she, Ms. Bennett, was new to the Cayman Islands -- the dialect was strange to her and she did not pick up everything. "On the phone 22 hose cir ies, tlrsaid.' I understand that he ha' rectl tlcumstand ate, y, didn't and what Magiso! In placed no reliance on the evidence of Ms. Bennett as corroborating the allegation that the words to which I have referred were
```html 1 said by the defendant. 2 Connor appealed to the Grand Court by 3 appeal notice dated 23 October 2007. That 4 appeal came before Justice Henderson on 6 5 March 2009. He reviewed the Magistrate's 6 conclusions and came to the conclusion that 7 no error could be found. The appellant appeals 8 from that decision to this Court; as he is 9 entitled to do under section 29 of the Court of 10 Appeal Law (2006 Revision), on a point of law 11 alone and not upon any question of fact. So it 12 is not for this Court to consider whether on 13 the evidence the Magistrate was correct to make 14 the finding that she did. 15 The point of law -- or, more precisely, 16 the two points of law -- which the appellant 17 seeks to raise in this Court arise from the 18 course of the trial. The Crown accepts that 19 those matters of complaint would, if made good, 20 constitute points of law on which an appeal 21 could pre brou 22 herefore fer in e's nec 23 what happened at the trial. 24 The trial commenced, as appears from the 25 Magistrate's own notes of evidence, on 6 ```
November 2006. The complainant, Iesha Connor, was called and sworn. She was examined in-chief on behalf of the Crown; and she was cross-examined by counsel, Mr. Meghoo, who was then representing the defendant. She completed her evidence in the course of the afternoon of the first day. The police officer, Sandra Bennett, was then called and examined in-chief by the Crown. In the course of her examination, she gave the evidence to which I have already referred. As I have said, she did not confirm that the words alleged were said. She was then cross-examined shortly by Mr. Meghoo. He asked her only three questions: whether she was present at the time of the phone call, where it happened, and whether she had been handed the telephone by Mrs. Iesha Connor. Counsel did not ask her -- and, in the circumstances, he must be taken to have exercised a positive judgment not to do so -- to that would have been a question which was unnecessary -- given the evidence she had already given -- and would have carried \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{Conv.}} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{02/09/09 (c.a.r.)}} \\ \hline \end{tabular}
```html 1 potential dangers. There was no re-examination 2 and Ms. Bennett was released. 3 The Magistrate's note then records that 4 "due to defendant's behaviour towards his 5 counsel in court, Mr. John Meghoo is given 6 leave to come off the record." 7 It is clear from what Mr. Connor has told 8 us that he lost confidence in his counsel 9 because his counsel was not prepared to put to 10 Ms. Bennett questions which he, Mr. Connor, 11 thought ought to be put. But counsel are, of 12 course, instructed on behalf of defendants in 13 order to exercise their professional judgment; 14 and that, clearly, is what Mr. Meghoo had done 15 in this case. 16 The trial was then adjourned. The 17 adjournment lasted from 6 November 2006 until 18 22 October 2007. During that period, of some 19 eleven and a half months, it seems that there 20 were a number of applications to the court to 21 new bai obtai 22 epresent or Mr. le 23 When the trial resumed on 22 October 2007, 24 another counsel, Mr. McGhee, appeared for the 25 defendant. He addressed the court in these

¶ [1] terms:

¶ [2] "I have received the notes. I cannot continue the particular trial given my instructions."

¶ [3] Mr. Connor parted company with Mr. Meghoo because things weren't being carried out the way Mr. Connor wanted.

¶ [4] Frivolous and vexatious matters can't be put. If the trial continues, there will be at least an application for the witness Iesha Connor to be recalled. There were also matters to be put to the officers as well. My application, if I am to stay on the record, is either recall the witnesses who were called or to restart the trial."

¶ [5] The Crown opposed recalling either Mrs. Connor or Ms. Bennett.

¶ [6] The Crown wanted the matter to continue.

¶ [7] The Magistrate then had to give a ruling ``` ```
```html 1 on the application that had been made to her. 2 She indicated that Mr. McGhee found himself in 3 an awkward position; but the Crown, she said, 4 was also in a difficult position. It was 5 dealing with a matter which occurred in early 6 2004 and it has a complainant -- that is, 7 Mrs. Iesha Connor -- who was fatigued, given 8 the history of the matter. The court file 9 shows the exhaustive history. The Magistrate 10 directed herself that she must balance the 11 concerns of all the parties, being mindful of 12 the fact that justice must not only be done, 13 but it must be seen to be done. She referred 14 to the fact that Officer Bennett was in Cayman 15 Brac and she went onto say this: 16 "I cannot grant the application 17 to restart the trial. Further, 18 I will not recall the 19 complainant in this matter. 20 Officer Bennett will be recalled 21 only if 22 or 23 counsel, however, I will 24 understand if he decides that he 25 can proceed no further. If that ```
```markdown is the case, then the trial will proceed today without counsel." There was then what must have been a short adjournment and Mr. McGhee came back to tell the court I will be with withdrawing from the case: "It appears I no longer enjoy his confidence. For that reason, I will not be staying in court for the matter." So the trial continued with the defendant, Mr. Connor, in person. He cross-examined the police officer, Officer Wilson, who was present in court; and he then gave his own evidence in-chief and was cross-examined upon it. As I have indicated, after hearing that evidence, the Magistrate reached the conclusion that the charge was made out. Interestingly, after the Magistrate had given her reasons, Mr. Connor said to the Court: "The court find me guilty. I t's fett's de or he Couci of me Iur' termen t the bet sion. and my life." The subsequent appeal history suggests that he has since taken a different view. Connor v. R. 02/09/09 (c.a.r.) ```
The short question for this Court on an appeal under section 29 is whether the judge erred in law in determining that the witness Iesha Connor should not be recalled, that the officer, Sandra Bennett, should not be recalled, and that she should not in the circumstances restart the trial -- a course which would have required an adjournment. We are satisfied that the Magistrate cannot be criticized for the decision which she took. She was dealing with what was essentially a domestic dispute. It had taken place at the beginning of 2004. She, clearly, took the view that it was time to bring the matter to a conclusion, given what she described as the exhaustive history. She had already heard the evidence of the principal witness, Iesha Connor, and the evidence of the police officer, Ms. Bennett, cross-examined by counsel at a time when the defendant was 22 ecalling She wle to beby red. The epresentere wa asnothir g ke the ry them. ig s entittaained view that "enough is enough" and the matter needed to be brought to a conclusion. There was no error of law. In those
```html 1 circumstances， this appeal must be dismissed. 2 3 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 4 5 6 Certified correct to the best of my skill and 7 ability， dated the 4th day of September 2009. 8 9 BOUSE 10 CAROL ROUSE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 21 23 24 25