ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
18 January 1999
Before F C Hamon, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and
Jurats Potter and Le Breton
Magistrates Court Appeal
Barry Edwin Akers
-v-
AG
Appeal against conviction on 2 September 1998, on 1 count of causing malicious damage (count 1).
(On 6 August 1998, a second count of malicious damage was dismissed, following a submission of no case to answer; and a third count of resisting police officers in the execution of their duty was dismissed on 2 September 1998].
Appeal dismissed
Advocate M H D Taylor for the Appellant
Advocate A J Belhomme on behalf of the Attorney General
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: We are reminded that our duties in an appeal of this kind are well summarised in the case of Little -v- AG (12 September 1994) Jersey Unreported. In that case the Court said this:
"The ground of appeal is that the learned Magistrates decision was not one to which he could reasonably have come in the circumstances. The ground of appeal embodies the legal test for this Court. It is not for us to substitute our own view for the view arrived at by the Magistrate. The Magistrate saw and heard the witnesses and he had the opportunity to observe their demeanour as they gave evidence before him. Our task is to examine the evidence in order to ascertain whether there was evidence upon which the Magistrate could reasonably rely in reaching the conclusion at which he arrived".
What the Magistrate said at the end of this trial was this.
"I first of all want to say this, the Court has very clearly heard what WPC Le Chevalier has said and the Court is left in no doubt whatsoever, that charge one as framed has been proven".
What WPC Le Chevalier said is this: she saw the right hand come out she heard a metallic noise as though something metallic was touching the car and when she looked to see what damage was there she saw that there was a fresh scratch mark along the side of the vehicle.
That, of course, as Mr Taylor has so rightly said does not cover the question of how the scratching occurred when apparently the appellant was holding two shopping bags and restraining his lady friend with his other hand at the same time. However, the evidence of the police officer is emphatic. She said she saw the right hand empty of shopping bags going along the side of the Porsche. She heard the metallic noise. A rusty bolt was found, but nothing was proven that that bolt had anything whatsoever to do with the evidence. The Magistrate may have relied on the fact that there was a drain near at hand and whatever was used might have fallen into the drain.
We have listened very carefully to the analysis given to us by Mr Taylor. We perhaps might not have reached the decision of the learned Magistrate. The witness who was so emphatic was a police officer. She was accompanied by another police officer, who, to a certain extent, confirmed her evidence. In the circumstances we dismiss the appeal.
Authorities
Little -v- AG (12 September 1994) Jersey Unreported
Swanston -v- AG (25 November 1998) Jersey Unreported CofA
Freeman -v- AG (1994) JLR 29