Davis Patrick Lawrence v R - Judgment

¶ ```html IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS HOLDEN AT TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN BEFORE THE BRUD CCE CHIEF JUSTICE GEORGE 1993 ON THE 12 F SCA 115/92 urniss DAVIS PATRICK LAWRENCE art REGINA Mr. John Lorn for the appellant Ms. Lorn for the Crown JUDGMENT On the 28th of November 1991 the appellant was in custody on all three counts of another drug related matter on which he had been arrested the previous day. Whilst he was in custody the appellant claimed to his residence where a search was conducted. How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself, that a vitamin ad beer containing cocaine was found in the vicinity of a washing app How three police officers - Det. Sgt. Melford Brown Det. Const. M. Jaintaque and P/C Earle White were present during the search, acknowledge, as indeed does the appellant himself
The document appears to be a legal appeal or judgment, discussing the grounds of appeal and the nature of admissions in evidence. Below is a faithful transcription of the visible text, formatted with Markdown, HTML, and LaTeX as requested: ```markdown The grounds of appeal were as follows:

¶ [1] The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine.

¶ [2] On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody.

¶ [3] The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr. Lawrence was in police custody. 3. The presumption was rebutted by the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the appellant. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. The learned Magistrate was wrong in law when he found that at the appellant had possession, care and control of the particular bottle which contained cocaine. 2. On the evidence there was a reasonable inference that Mr.
The document appears to be a legal judgment or decision. Here is the transcription of the visible text: --- **The appeal against conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to supply is dismissed. With regard to the sentence, the appellant admits that he earned $366 - $400 per week. He will not be doing prison for a while. There was no other enquiry as to the appellant for 4 months and in default of that I must consider the fine of $2000.00 pay. 11 months imprisonment in default of payment excessive. Some fine mandatory and in those circumstances the Court on this appeal circuit itself a degree of speculation from the whole surrounding circumstances shown as to what this appellant is likely to be able to substitute a fine of $1000.00 with 1 month's imprisonment default of payment.** --- **G. E. Harre Chief Justice** **16th April** --- The document is signed by G. E. Harre, Chief Justice, and dated 16th April. The text discusses the dismissal of an appeal against a conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to supply, and the consideration of a sentence, including the fine and potential imprisonment. The judge has decided to substitute a fine of $1000.00 with 1 month's imprisonment in default of payment.