Summerfield J
```markdown # IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS ## JUDGMENT **Case No.:** 81 of 1981 **Date:** July, 1981 **Counsel for the Crown:** Mr. O.L. Pant **Counsel for the Defendant:** J. Martin **Appellant:** Enriques Rankine **Respondent:** Regina --- ### Judgment This is an appeal against an order for the forfeiture of a Honda motor cycle under section 14(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Law 1973 following conviction for possession of a controlled drug, namely Ganja, contrary to section 3(1) of that Law. At the conclusion of the hearing, I allowed the appeal and the reasons follow. --- ### Facts The appellant was seen riding along Walker's Road on his Honda motor cycle by Two able nice Officers driving along the same road. They came up behind the appellant and noticed that he looked worried. The appellant then threw a packet to the ground while still driving. The police officers stopped the patrol car and recovered the packet. They pursued the appellant, caught him, and then confronted him with the packet, which he opened. It contained vegetable matter which turned out to be Ganja, 2.3 grams in weight. The police officers seized the motor cycle, arrested the appellant, and charged him under section 14(1) of the above Law. --- ### Proceedings
**Trial:** The appellant pleaded guilty and the above facts were outlined by the prosecution.
**Sentence:** The record reads as follows: - "Defendant tells Court that he has nothing to say." - "Crown Counsel applies for forfeiture of vessel used for transportation." - **Sentence:** 5 Days Imprisonment - **Fine:** $300.00 or 6 Months to Follow if Fine Unpaid. - **Honda Cycle No.:** 4303, Ordered forfeited to the Cayman Islands Government. --- ### Grounds of Appeal The appellant appeals on the following grounds: 1. **Section 14(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Law:** - "(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence against this Law, and the court by or before which he is convicted is satisfied that any vessel which was in his possession or under his control at the time of his apprehension—" --- ### Conclusion The appeal is allowed for the reasons outlined above. --- **Judgment Date:** July, 1981 **Judgment No.:** 81 of 1981 **Judgment by:** Mr. Justice T. John Summerfield ```
```markdown (a) has been used for the purpose of committing or (b) was intended by him to be used for that purpose; the court shall order the forfeiture to the Crown of such vessel. (3) Facilitating the commission of an offence shall be taken for the purposes of this section to include the taking of any steps after the offence has been committed for the purpose of disposing of any property to which it relates or of avoiding apprehension or detection". It is noted that the appellant had the offending ganja on his person and not in his possession of the motor cycle. The mere fact that the ganja was found in or was in the motor cycle does not necessarily mean that the vessel he was using was used for the purpose of committing or facilitating the committed offence of possession. Each case will turn on its own facts bearing in mind the facts outlined in this case. On the facts as outlined do not appear to point to the conclusion that the appellant was trying to avoid the possession of the ganja, not in any way associated with that possession. It may be assumed that the appellant (unrepresented) was not aware that there was section 14 (2) of the Act. He was not invited to make any representations thereon. More importantly, it does not appear from the record that the learned Magistrate applied here is. Section 14 (2) of the Act requires the trial court to be satisfied that any vessel in the possession or under the control of the accused at the time of apprehension had been used for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of the offence (or was intended to be used for that purpose). That means that the court must direct its mind to the issue and reach a finding on it. The burden and degree of proof would be on the prosecution. Here a trial court Magistrate appears merely to have responded to an application by the prosecutor. There was no admission made by the appellant and no finding on the issue. For the reasons the appeal was allowed and it was ordered that the motor cycle be forfeited to the appellant. ``` The handwritten notes on the right side of the page are not transcribed as they are not part of the printed text. If you need those notes transcribed, please let me know!