Harre J
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMANS
HOLDEN AT GEORGE TOWN, GRAND CAUSE NO. 2868-70/88
CORAMI Harre J.
BETWEEN: VERNON
N ISLANDS
YMAN
N LESTER BANKS
AND:
Appellant in person. For the Crown's Ms. J. Conolly,
On 19th January 1989 we
of 12 months imprisonment for c
escaping lawful custody; and 3
these sentences were concurrent
place on 16th August 1989. He a
6 months imprisonment for an un
REGINA
JUDGMENT.
Vernon Lester Ebanks received sentences
consumption of cocaine ; 3 months for
years for possession of cocaine. All
that arose out of incidents which took
also received a consecutive sentence of
related offence of theft.
In his Notice of Appeal
ground that the sentence for
that there were others who got
intent to supply. However, in
hearing he set out additional s
the drug related convictions.
Ebanks was not represe
and had no communication with
something about which he has no
entitled to know the substance.
1 Ebanks referred only to the general
session was harsh and excessive and
a letter presented to the Court, at the
rounds as a basis for an appeal against
ted at the trial. He complains that
substance of the prosecution evidence,
returned counsel in that regard. That is
valid complaint. Clearly he is
of the charges against him and to have
an opportunity to answer them.
nor is there anything in the
I turn therefore to the
conviction with which I must co
on the basis of section 711(b).
He does not suggest that he did not
cord to suggest that he did not.
e other matters relating to his
insider in more detail. He raises these
of the Misuse of Drugs Law (Revised).
It reads as follows --
"Where it is
reasonable or
in his posse-
under his co-
containing a
shall be pre-
contrary is
was in pose-
sion of such drug,"
proved beyond
doubt that a person had
sion or custody or
introl anything
controlled drug, it
should until the
president, that such person
sion of such drug."
on him has been
There is no
time of my as-
disallowed to
prove. Bef-
could be ap-
first neces-
to prove not
relevant in
that the pro-
recessary st
exhibit as t
analysis cer-
any reliance
the Cayman L
Law."
The accused was found
of cocaine, five of which were
paper and the other one in a sli-
alleged conversation
at the
that evidently
of the contrary to be
pre section 7 (1)(b)
lied, however, it is
ary for the prosecution
only that I was at the
a ir possession but also
section must give the
strict proof of the
the controlled drug in
difficult relates befor-
upon section 6(2) of
slands Misuse of Drugs
to have been in possession of six rocks
wrapped in gold coloured cigarette
liver coloured paper. If I understand
him correctly he is not complai-
quoted above, that he was not a
displace the section 7(1)(b) pr-
in the circumstances - but that
does not arise because it was n
he had in his possession anythi-
saying that the necessary stan-
substance in his possession and
court has not been met.
For the prosecution to
beyond reasonable doubt that the
police constable, I must bring in the passage which I have
given the opportunity of attempting to
the question of his having to do so
or proved beyond reasonable doubt that
ng containing a controlled drug. He is
and of proof of connection between the
the substance analysed and produced in
suffereed it must satisfy the Court
e sample analysed was that recovered by
also satisfy the Court that the
certificate produced related to
these respects makes the anal-
evidentiary terms.
The following is an es-
tract from the Magistrate's record of
the evidence of Police Constable
accused.
'As soon as
the station,
rocks and pl
plastic exhi
I heal-seale
presence-'
These are th
the $1 bill.'
3
Ebanks, the officer who arrested the
I had the defendant in
back them in a clear
bit bag in his presence.
d in the accused's
witness shown item)
e exhibits, the cocaine,
the beef can.' I later
transported
Squad offi
later received
cocaine, so
were in fact
certificate of
negative. In
relation to
cocaine is a
The analyst's certifi
the package when he received it
'I received a sealed package wh
The sealed package was identifi
follows --
the items to the drug
in George Town. I
ad certificates for the
wing that the six items
cocaine base. The
of the can came back
is is the certificate
of the cocaine.' The
ate refers to the label which was on
on 25th August 1988 as follows --
which was intact upon delivery to me.
ed with a label which was marked as
ROYAL CAYMAN ISLANDS
POLICE STATION
DATE SEALED
TIME SEALED
ACCUSED L.L. VERNON II
ITEM REF#
SEALING OFFICER
It then describes the
cocaine base.
DLICE FORCE
FIRST BAY
16.8.88
9.30PM.
ESTER ERANKS (2). TOM JERRY. ERANKS
S.E.I..
P.C.5. ERANKS $107.
contents as being 0.488 grams, 88%
In considering the sufficiency
James O. Dilbert v. R (Sumner)
concerned a sample of urine, an
distinguished the English case
Faucet, an unreported decision
Bench Division. That also conce
of this evidence I have referred to
Court Appeal 72/08). That case
in the Court considered and
of James Martin Tremlatt v.. Richard
of a Divisional Court of the Queens
tried a urine sample. I shall not
repeat the analysis of the Engl
and Dilbert was described by th
'The distinc
tion between Tremlett
art case is that nowhere
did any detective
tester as to what he
label of the container.
those details were
seen in evidence. In the
present case
package deli
in Palm Beach
label which
which correc
expect to fit
in the case,
roubere in th
defective to
labelled the
is left to a
of the label
chemist are
of the label
officer. The
the Court is
In the present case the
words what he wrote on the lab
both
exhibits words that he labelled the heat
whilst the sealed
vered to the laboratory
was identified by a
contained information
bonds to what one would
reason a label made out
against this appellant,
evidence do the
alicit in what manner
containing. The Court
assume that the contents
as received by the
the same as the contents
as completed by the
it is an assumption which
not entitled to make.'
be reliable does not say in so many
I indeed he does not say in so many
sealed container at all. What he has
in court done instead is identify the
labelled, as being the one to w
Dilbert the case. I have had an oppor
precisely corresponding to that
only
certificate contains a small quantity of a
in court
of silver and gold coloured pa
wrappings which was given in ev
between Dilbert and the presen
to make assumptions on the bas
labelled and sealed transparent
identified by two police offi
recovered during the course of
there was, in addition to the sealed package in court, any
which he referred. It is Exhibit I in
whit
nity to look at it. It bears a label
described on the certificate and
white substance, together with pieces
er answering the description of the
evidence. That is the distinction
t case. The Court was not simply left
s of a certificate. It had before it a
package, the contents of which were
returned court as being what they had
the incident on 16th August 1988.
evidence of PC Ebanks, evidence from
Sgt. Goodings to that effect.
It would be coincident
the substance and wrapping rec
evidence were anything other th
police officers on 16th August
The appeal against con-
I now turn to the appe-
that recent convictions for pos-
with intent to supply have led
imposed on him for simple pose-
for supplying any drug, although
5 victim accordingly fails.
all against sentence. The appellant says
sessions of larger amounts of cocaine
together prison sentences than that.
session. He has no record of conviction
h he admitted 3 drug related
convictions.
As in previous cases, I
made available by Crown Counsel
offenders in 1987 and 1988. It
that his sentence is markedly a
apparently similar circumstance
two of them to me. One involve-
by a man with two previous drug
months imprisonment. The other
by a man with 6 previous convi-
was 2 years imprisonment, with
the Court has been helped by a list
showing sentences passed on drug
bears out the appellant's contention
ut of line with sentences passed in
s. Indeed Crown Counsel pointed out
d possession of 0.191 grams of cocaine
convictions. The sentence was 10
related to possession of 0.130 grams
times unrelated to drugs. The sentence
12 months suspended.
The appellant was in co-
cocaine, 0.488 grams but it was
Magistrate expressly found that
supply. The 3 years sentence is
possession of considerably lar-
consider it manifestly excessive
possession. I reduce it to a
concurrent with the sentences of
consumption and 3 months for ea-
sentence of 6 months imprisonment,
which concerned a theft commit-
possession of a larger amount of
still a small amount. The learned
t was for his own use and not for
s in line with those passed for
er amounts with intent to supply and I
e for this offence of simple
entence of 18 months imprisonment,
of 12 months imprisonment for
capping lawful custody. The consecutive
misdemeanour in respect of charge 2465/88
ed on another occasion, remains.
G.E. Harre
Judge