Rowe JA, Taylor JA, Zacca JA
IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL Crime (Summary Court HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and- DENIED MCKAY 9 8 2001 Appeal No. 9 of 2001 (Appeal No. 55 of 2000) spondent BEFORE: The Hon. Marcus Thompson ins. Miss Cheryll Richards. Heard: April 3rd 2001 ZACCA P. DENIED MCKAY Honourable Mr. Justice E. Zacca, President Honourable Mr. Justice I. Rowe, Justice of Appeal Honourable Mr. Justice M. Taylor, Justice of Appeal eructed by Walkers for the Appellant. for the Respondent Crown. Reasons released. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT August 9th 2001 The appellant Denise cocaine. She was sent- appeal against sentence to this Court. On April 3rd 2001, a The appeal against sent- McKay on June 29th 2000 pleaded guilty to a charge enced to a term of imprisonment for seven years. Conse- quence was dismissed by the Grand Court. She then filed an application was made to this Court for leave to appeal intence was also before the Court. age of importation of January 25th 2001 her on an appeal against al against conviction.
The application for le Court in the case of Roberts had been char a trial and sentenced to At the trial a certifica tive to appeal against conviction was founded upon a R. v. Carlyle Roberts handed down on February 27, ged with possession of cocaine with intent to supply. He died four years imprisonment. The certificate of analysis was tendered in evidence. This certificate of analysis was 2 cent judgment of this rd 2001. In that case he was convicted after it stated that the result of the analysis was co as there was no evi- (section 7(3) of the ground. The Court also held th of controlled drugs, T of cocaine. The appeal It would have been been came hydrochloride. The Court held that the certifica- tence that a notice along with a copy of the certificate tion of Drugs Law (2000 Revision). The appea visuse of was allowed on this ground. permissible for the prosecution to call evidence at it was not admissible was served on Roberts was allowed on this atorily forbidden class either cocaine or a salt he trial to prove that “cocaine hydrochlori- In the case before us hydrochloride”. Rely- application for leave le” was cocaine or a salt of cocaine. the certificate of analysis stated that the result of the applying on the case of R. v. Roberts, counsel for the appli- to appeal against conviction should be granted.
The appellant was char- conviction was enter- aware that the substan- guilty. Section 165 of the Crim- inal Procedure Code states: 3 pleaded guilty and a he appellant was not her intention to plead "No appeal sh- has been convi- of the sentence." This section may ap- this Court may allow
1 W.L.R. 578 This, however, is not to the prosecution to has not been submit- tall be allowed in a case in which the accused person listed by the Summary Court on such plea, except as to," all be an absolute bar, but it is our opinion that in a guilty plea to be vacated and a not guilty plea c. C.A.) such a case. If the appellant had pleaded not guilty, it would hence that "cocaine hydrochloride" was cocaine as pleaded guilty and the extent or legality certain circumstances, ttered. Regina v. Lee would have been open on a salt of cocaine. It as cocaine or a salt of cocaine if the eviden- mistaken belief that it By her plea of guilty. If the Court was min- would be entered. At ce had been called. Nor has it been submitted that the ac- he substance was not cocaine. she accepted that she had knowingly imported cocaine tried to vacate the plea of guilty the result would be the the trial it would be open to the prosecution to call the appellant was under the into these Islands. at a plea of not guilty necessary evidence.
In the circumstances of guilty plea has been e would not of itself ent The application for lo sentence was allowed if this case, no reliance could be placed on the case of entered the fact that the certificate of analysis stated “on tle the appellant to have her plea vacated. would not of itself ent The application for lo sentence was allowed if this case, no reliance could be placed on the case of entered the fact that the certificate of analysis stated “on tle the appellant to have her plea vacated. 4 R. v. Roberts, Where a ocaine hydrochloride” ver the appeal against