Collett JA, Rowe JA, Zacca JA
C I C U A T HE CAYMAN ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL Criminal Ap- (Summary Court Ap- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Resp. and - STANNETTE PEPP 24/8/2001 AL Deal No. 17 of 2001 Deal No. 9 of 2001) BEFORE: The Tho John Furniss instr- Adam Roberts for Heard August 10th 2001 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Appellant Rt. Honourable Mr. Justice E. Zacca, President Honourable Mr. Justice G. Collett, J.A. Honourable Mr. Justice I. D. Rowe, J.A. cted by Keith Collins & Co. for the Appellant. the Respondent Crown. 01 Reasons released REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ant On August 24th 2001 doing so. The appell- office of importa- tion on January 29th 2001 pleaded guilty in the Summa- 1 our reasons for your Court to one of Drugs Law
(2000 Revision), serve eight years Having fail- ing also failed or withdrawn under to the Grand Court for leave to section 166(2) of extend such time, The only r- time was her diss- in Summary Cour- the application to From this extend time for giving notice of appeal. Under the term of the Code, the Grand Court is invested with power to reason advanced by the appellant in support of her appli- tisfaction with the conduct of her case by the attorney. On March 14th 2001 Mr. Justice Panton in the Grand Extreme. determination to refuse leave, the appellant next sought its proviso its discretion to cation to extend representing her d Court refused leave to appeal to the Court of Ap- preliminary objec- ties to this Court in of appeal under se- we upheld the objec- tional and also against the severity of the sentence impo- sion was taken at the hearing, on behalf of the Crown. from the refusal of a Grand Court judge to extend time in section 166(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. After his ction and dismissed the appeal. 2 ed upon her. A that no appeal or giving notice aring argument
The jurisdiction is founded upon th provides: "Any person or made by jurisdiction of this Court in criminal and civil matters is pure the proceed- Law to the action of this Court in criminal and civil matters is pure. Court of Appeal Law (1996 Revision). Section 29. including the prosecutor, aggrieved by any judgment that stand Court in the exercise of its appellate or review, unless such judgment has been given or made upon from a court of summary jurisdiction ... and whether issues are civil or criminal in nature, may appeal, subject Court on an ground of appeal which involves a point. y statutory and i) of that Law given since prior or not to this of law alone, or ag- It should be Law "judgment" in first sight it might extend time might and thus appealable The Crown must sentence but not upon any question of fact." noted that, in accordance with the interpretation secti- eludes any sentence, decree, order or determination of appear that, upon a liberal interpretation of this defini- the categorised as an "order" or a "determination" of the tion of this Court. to this Court. however relied upon a unanimous decision of the Hou- se of Lords in on (s. 2) of the any court. At on, a refusal to Grand Court, see of Lords in England, were v. refusal of necessary order or a determin-
Lord Halsbury "... it is obvi- there should there should state [169.] A.C. 210, which clearly sets out the leave by an intermediate court is not regarded in law on subject to appeal to the final court of review in the L.C. in the leading speech observed: thus that what was there intended by the Legislature will be in some form or other a power to stop an appeal, not be an appeal unless some particular body pointed it 3 reasons why a w as either an matter. At p. s that ut by
... should permit that an appeal should be given . . . ended as a check to unnecessary or frivolous absolutely illusory if you can appeal from that decisioneyer it is to be called itself. How could any Otterman whether leave ought to be given or not in determining upon the hearing whether it was a fit case and of the intermediate court could either and must end, then the Court which is the ultimate Court of Appeal. The result of that would be that ... you might in its every case in which, following the ordinary course of it be only one ..." during speech Lord Herschel referred to the Court of Ap- pearing urely if calls, it sion or court of without her into al must have sure of appeal decision in Kay v. Briggs 22 Act 1873 which is determination of so special leave to a Divisional Court . "In the case appeal." I their deter- that they wil- decision on language, B.D. 343 where the court had to construe section 45 ... provided that in appeals to a Divisional Court from its each appeals respectively by such Divisional Courts shall appeal from the same to the Court of Appeal shall be " Lord Herschel remarked at page 214: of Kay v. Briggs the Divisional Court had refused leave, and it was attempted in the Court of Appeal to limit in that respect. The Court of Appeal took therein the question and could not rely the Divisional Court; and the Master of the Royal which appeals to me to be quite appropriate to the of the Judicature prior courts "the be final unless e given by the have to review it ... e w the s uses question. If 'If each to dis- con- Divi- Now if you every word of days." this Court could overrule the discretion given by the Union to Divisional Courts the practical effect would be an appeal here in every case, because the facts of each case would be brought before us in order to enable its decision. I think that the real meaning of sect. 45 is to give leave to appeal absolutely to the sional Courts." substitute for "the Divisional Courts" "the Court of Ap-of that is strictly applicable to the present case..." 4
This quota arc of general ap- brought only by le- No more modified or dimin- the Cayman courts ation makes it plain that the principles adopted by the plication to cases where an appeal to an intermediate have of that intermediate court. recent decision of the English courts has, so far as should force of this authority, nor are there any repor- which touch upon the issue. In these circumstances it House of Lords e court can be we are aware, recommendations of we were content respecting to re- to review or over- to appeal out of fin- Zacca P. Collett J.A. Rowe J.A. ow and apply Lane v. Esdale and to hold that we have the exercise by a Grand Court judge of his discretion from a decision of the Summary Court. no jurisdiction to refuse leave