JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, Delivered the 28th February 2005

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, Delivered the 28th February 2005"

Transcription

1 Jahree v. The State (Mauritius) [2005] UKPC 7 (28 February 2005) Privy Council Appeal No. 4 of 2004 ADVANCE COPY Gianchand Jahree The State v. FROM Appellant Respondent THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, Delivered the 28th February Present at the hearing:- Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Steyn Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Baroness Hale of Richmond Lord Carswell [Delivered by Lord Carswell] On 10 October 2001 the appellant Gianchand Jahree appeared in the Intermediate Court of Mauritius to stand trial on a charge of possession of counterfeit bank notes. The counsel whom he had earlier instructed to represent him was not present, and the magistrate Mrs D Beesoondoyal refused his application for an adjournment to allow him to instruct another counsel. The trial proceeded, the appellant representing himself, and on 4 December 2001 the magistrate gave a written decision finding him guilty as charged, sentencing him to nine months imprisonment and ordering him to pay Rs 500 for costs. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Mauritius (Pillay CJ and Matadeen J), which on 25 February 2003 dismissed his appeal with costs. The appellant has appealed, with the leave of the Supreme Court, to the Privy Council on grounds in which a number of breaches of the Constitution of Mauritius are alleged. [2005] UKPC 7

2 2. The charge against the appellant arose out of events on 22 August 1999, when police officers conducted a search of his premises at Boulet Rouge, Central Flacq. When they went to search his van, which was in the yard, he asked them to carry out the search at a police compound in Flacq. The van was taken there and searched. The officers found a black waist bag concealed at the rear offside of the vehicle, between the box of the van and the chassis. Inside there was a green plastic bag, which contained three envelopes. Two of the envelopes contained rectangular cut pieces of white paper, and in the third was a piece of paper bearing some writing and wrapped around four spurious notes, each of Rs 1000 denomination. Six other similar pieces of rectangular paper were found under a seat in the van. When cautioned, the appellant denied any knowledge of these items. 3. The appellant made a written statement to the police later the same day, in which he stated that he had been threatened by a person whom he named as Shradhanand (also known as Preetam) Ramsurrun and suspected that that person had planted the incriminating items on him. He made the same case when he gave evidence at his subsequent trial. 4. The case was on 24 March 2000 referred by the Director of Public Prosecutions for determination by the Intermediate Court and an information was sworn on 6 April The case was called on 24 April 2000, when the appellant informed the court that he would retain the services of counsel. He appeared again on 15 May 2000, when he filed a letter from Mr Dev Hurnam, a member of the Mauritius Bar. The trial was fixed for 18 January On 18 January 2001 Mr Hurnam sought leave to attend a continuation of a case before another division of the court and filed a letter with the court. Leave was granted, but at 1.45 pm another counsel Mr Hurhangee appeared and informed the court that he had been asked to replace Mr Hurnam and request a postponement. The court, apparently with some reluctance, granted the application and the case was postponed for trial until 10 October On 10 October 2001 the appellant was present in court, but neither Mr Hurnam nor any other counsel was there to represent the appellant. The minutes of the proceedings read as follows: The accused, upon question from Court, states that he is praying for a postponement to retain services of another

3 counsel. The Court informs accused that this case was called the last time on , on which date owing to the absence of counsel, the case was postponed for trial for today, that is some 9 months later. If the accused had so wished he should have already retained the services of another counsel as he had plenty of time to do so. The Court is not prepared to grant a last minute postponement today as this would not be in the interests of justice and also because the accused is making an abuse of his right to counsel. The postponement is therefore not granted and the Court proceeds to hear the case. No response from the appellant to these statements by the magistrate has been recorded. The Board was informed that Mr Hurnam had been suspended from practice by a decision of the Supreme Court, for one year from 20 March 2001, and was not eligible to appear for the appellant. The magistrate did not refer to this and their Lordships do not know whether she was aware of it. Nor did the appellant at any stage say that he had expected to meet Mr Hurnam at court that morning, which, if it were true, one would have expected him to state at once when the magistrate said that he had had plenty of time to obtain the services of another counsel. On the contrary, he is recorded as having asked for a postponement to obtain the services of another counsel, which must give rise to an inference that he already knew that Mr Hurnam would not be appearing for him. 7. The evidence for the prosecution was called, but the appellant did not cross-examine any of the witnesses. In the course of the evidence of one of them the prosecutor sought leave to adduce the evidence of a document examiner, and when leave was given he produced the report of the examiner, which was admitted in evidence. This related to a comparison of the handwriting of the appellant and that of Shradhanand (otherwise Preetam) Ramsarrun with the writing on the paper in which the bank notes were wrapped. The examiner found no conclusive similarities of handwriting characteristics. 8. The appellant gave evidence on his own behalf, but did not call any other witnesses. In the course of his cross-examination the appellant suggested that somebody had opened the van on the Saturday prior to the police visit, whereupon the following exchange between the magistrate and the appellant was recorded:

4 Q. But you had not noticed the van having been opened? A. Yes. Q. Had you locked your van on the Saturday when you had left it at Le Citadelle? A. Yes. But I had left the front windows open by some 2 cms. Q. Are you saying that when you parked your van at Le Citadelle, in your mind anyone could have opened the door of the van? A. No. Q. Do you agree that any vehicle can be opened by means of a false key? A. Yes. Q. And you stated earlier that the gloves box of your van was a safe place to keep important keys? A. Yes. Q. Do you still maintain that it was a safe place to keep such important keys? A. Yes. Q. I put it to you that all the exhibits secured from inside and outside your van belonged to you, including the spurious notes? A. No. Q. I also put it to you that you knowingly and unlawfully had in your possession those 4 spurious notes of Rs. 1000? A. No. 9. In her judgment the magistrate set out the charge and the evidence given and her conclusion that she was satisfied beyond

5 reasonable doubt that the appellant knew all about the presence of the exhibits, including the four spurious notes, and that he therefore had the spurious notes in his possessions, as averred by the prosecution. She found the appellant guilty as charged and imposed the penalties referred to earlier. Miss Moonshiram, who appeared for the appellant before the Board, was critical of the magistrate for not referring to the fact that the appellant was unrepresented or that he requested an adjournment. She also submitted that the court had drawn wrong inferences from the facts of the case. 10. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Mauritius, his appeal being based on three grounds (a) breach of his constitutional rights in the magistrate s refusal to permit an adjournment to allow him to obtain legal representation (b) unfairness in the trial (i) in the magistrate s questioning of the appellant (ii) in the failure of the prosecution to obtain and call evidence about the threatening calls made to the appellant (this ground was abandoned at the hearing of the appeal) (c) incorrect conclusions drawn by the magistrate from the evidence. 11. The appeal was heard on 25 February Counsel then appearing for the appellant argued that the magistrate should have enquired into the reason why he found himself without counsel at the trial and, if he knew that Mr Hurnam could not appear, what steps he had taken to obtain the services of a replacement. He was left in a disadvantaged position, facing a serious charge without a skilled legal representative to ensure that his case was properly presented, which was a breach of his constitutional rights. There was argument on each side about the inferences drawn from the facts of the case, and in his rejoinder counsel for the appellant is reported in the minutes of the proceedings as stating: On the facts, he thinks that it could be inferred that he had guilty knowledge. 12. The court s decision was given in a short oral judgment by Pillay CJ. The court considered that, as held by the magistrate, it was through the appellant s own fault that he found himself unrepresented on the day of his trial, citing Mohammadally v The State (2000 SCJ No 289) and distinguishing Mitchell v R [1999] 1 WLR The Court did not address the other point, stating that it took that course as learned Counsel for the appellant conceded that, on the facts of the case, the trial Court was right to have found that

6 the appellant had the requisite knowledge and was guilty of the offence charged. 13. The provisions of the Constitution of Mauritius upon which the appellant s counsel relied before the Board are contained in section 10, the material parts of which read: (1) Where any person is charged with a criminal offence, then, unless the charge is withdrawn, the case shall be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law. (2) Every person who is charged with a criminal offence (c) * * * * * shall be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (d) shall be permitted to defend himself in person or, at his own expense, by a legal representative of his own choice or, where so prescribed, by a legal representative provided at the public expense; 14. In Mohammadally v The State, a previous decision of the Supreme Court of Mauritius, the first appellant had dispensed with the services of her counsel four days before the date of trial and had not taken steps to engage another. The trial judge refused to grant her a postponement, on the ground that she could readily have made efforts to obtain another counsel in the time. She was convicted of a drugs charge and her appeal against conviction was dismissed. The court took the view that as she could easily have engaged another counsel in the time and had made no attempt to do so, she had not been denied access to legal advice and there was no breach of section 10 of the Constitution. 15. In so ruling the court in Mohammadally v The State followed its earlier decision in Gooranah v The Queen [1968] MR 122. In that case the appellant had appeared three times before the court before the date of trial. On the morning of trial he produced a letter from a member of the Bar stating that he had just been instructed for the defence, but as he was engaged elsewhere and had not had time to study the case he must ask for a postponement. The trial judge refused and his decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. In his judgment Rivalland CJ, after referring to section 10(2) of the Constitution, stated at pages 124-5:

7 The all important words of paragraph (d) in my view are shall be permitted to defend himself. The duty on the Court is clear and is impliedly twofold: an accused party must be given a reasonable opportunity to retain the services of a legal representative of his choice and, at the trial of the case, the legal representative must be given full latitude in accordance with the law of this country to defend the accused. On the other hand, the duty to retain the services of a legal representative of his choice lies on an accused party and the words of his choice are here again important: they necessarily connote the idea that, if he has a wide choice from among the members of the Bar, the responsibility for the choice is his, not that of the Court. The duty cast on the Court is purely a passive one in so far as the presence of counsel at the trial is concerned, while the responsibility for the briefing of the legal representative and ensuring his presence in Court devolves from the very words of the Constitution on the accused party. The provisions of the Constitution were never intended to be a cloak for the laches of an accused party. 16. Their Lordships consider that the principles laid down in Mohammadally v The State and Gooranah v The Queen are correct and are consistent with those accepted by the Judicial Committee in Robinson v The Queen [1985] AC 956 and Dunkley v The Queen [1995] 1 AC 419. In Robinson v The Queen counsel had been engaged by the appellant but did not turn up in court because he had not been put in funds. The judge refused to hold up the trial, which commenced without counsel. On the following day junior counsel appeared and asked for permission for himself and his leader to withdraw from the case. The judge offered him a legal aid assignment, but counsel declined it. The judge then refused permission to withdraw and refused to adjourn the trial, whereupon counsel left the court and did not return. The Judicial Committee held that there had not been a breach of the relevant provisions of the Jamaican Constitution, which were closely similar to those of Mauritius. Giving the judgment of the Board, Lord Roskill stated at pages 966-7: In their Lordships view the important word used in section 20(6)(c) is permitted. He must not be prevented by the state in any of its manifestations, whether judicial or executive, from exercising the right accorded by the subsection. He must be permitted to exercise those rights. It is apparent that no one could have done more than the

8 judge to secure the defendant s representation by counsel of his choice In their Lordships view the judge s exercise of his discretion, which the counsel for the appellant rightly conceded to exist, can only be faulted if the constitutional provisions make it necessary for the judge, whatever the circumstances, always to grant an adjournment so as to ensure that no one who wishes legal representation is without such representation. Their Lordships do not for one moment underrate the crucial importance of legal representation for those who require it. But their Lordships cannot construe the relevant provisions of the Constitution in such a way as to give rise to an absolute right to legal representation which if exercised to the full could all too easily lead to manipulation and abuse If a defendant does not take reasonable steps to ensure that he is represented at the trial, whether on legal aid or otherwise, he cannot reasonably claim that the lack of legal representation resulted from a deprivation of his constitutional rights. 17. This decision was followed in Dunkley v The Queen [1995] 1 AC 419, in which the appellant s counsel had walked out of a murder trial after a dispute with the judge, leaving the appellant unrepresented for the remainder of the proceedings. The Privy Council reaffirmed that the law remained as stated in Robinson v The Queen, that there was no absolute right to legal representation throughout the course of a trial. They allowed the appeal, however, on the ground of the prejudice suffered by the appellant in attempting to conduct his defence without counsel. 18. Mitchell v The Queen [1999] 1 WLR 1679, which the Supreme Court distinguished, was a case of capital murder from Jamaica. In mid-trial the defendant expressed a desire to take over cross-examination of the witnesses from his counsel, who then asked leave to withdraw. The judge did not accede to the request at once, but attempted to persuade the defendant to change his mind and counsel to stay to assist him in some capacity. Neither was willing to accept his recommendation, the defendant asserting that he could do it on his own. Eventually the judge permitted counsel to withdraw and the defendant conducted the rest of the trial without representation. The Privy Council held, apparently influenced by the seriousness and difficulty of the case, that the judge should nevertheless have done more: he should have adjourned the trial for a short time to see if other counsel would be ready and willing to act for the defendant. The decision does not,

9 however, detract from the validity of the proposition that if a defendant is left unrepresented through his own fault that is not a breach of his constitutional right to legal representation. It is, however, necessary to go on to consider whether as a result of the absence of legal representation any miscarriage of justice may have occurred. 19. In the present case the Board does not have the advantage of verbatim transcripts of the proceedings before the magistrate or the Supreme Court. The minutes of proceedings before the magistrate state, however, that the first request of the appellant was for a postponement to retain services of another counsel, which carries the implication that he was aware that his counsel would not be available to represent him at the trial. There is no hint in the minutes of a reply to the court of the type which one would naturally find if he expected to meet Mr Hurnam at court that morning. Nor has the appellant at any stage stated, either personally or through counsel on appeal, that he was unaware of Mr Hurnam s suspension and expected to meet him at court. In these circumstances one must infer that the magistrate, especially by her reference to an abuse of his right to counsel concluded that the appellant knew that there were difficulties about his representation but took no action to secure the services of counsel. That being so, it was within her discretion to refuse to adjourn the trial and to require the appellant to proceed without legal representation. Their Lordships accordingly do not consider it necessary to express any view on the exact content of the duty of an accused person to ensure the presence of his legal representative in court. It may be observed, however, that in most cases it would be incumbent upon the court, faced with an unrepresented defendant on a serious charge, to make proper inquiry about the reasons and, if deciding to proceed, to ensure that the defendant has been able to read the case papers or is given sufficient time to allow him to do so. It would also be prudent to ensure that such steps are properly noted in some official form. 20. Their Lordships accordingly consider that the ground of appeal based on section 10(2) of the Constitution is not well based. The consequential issue is whether the degree of prejudice suffered by the appellant through the absence of legal representation was sufficient to give rise to a miscarriage of justice. This issue is cognate with those based on section 10(1) and the fairness of the hearing. The first complaint made by counsel for the appellant was that the magistrate had failed to give the appellant the assistance which is due to an unrepresented defendant, by ensuring that the essential questions which might help his case are asked of the

10 prosecution witnesses, and that she had too readily made adverse rulings in the course of the trial. Their Lordships note that these points were not considered sufficiently fundamental to take before the Supreme Court. The case was a simple and straightforward one, and cross-examination of the witnesses would have yielded little: the defence was not a denial of the basic facts proved by the prosecution, but consisted of an allegation that the counterfeit notes had been planted by another person in the appellant s van. The rulings enumerated by Miss Moonshiram were, with one exception, of a type which could scarcely have been opposed. That exception was the admission of the statement made by the handwriting examiner, which could have been of adverse significance. Since, however, it purported to establish that the writing on the paper was not the appellant s, it was to that extent in his favour. In so far as it proved that it was not Ramsarrun s, that may have tended to some degree to negate the appellant s defence, but it was not of great probative significance, for it was not an essential part of his case that Ramsarrun should have written the document. 21. Their Lordships feel more concern about the manner in which the magistrate questioned the appellant in the passages which have been set out earlier in this judgment. It is highly undesirable that a judge should cross-examine an accused person in such a way as to appear to be siding with the prosecution. Appellate courts have constantly said that judges should exercise considerable restraint in their interventions: Archbold, 2002 ed, para 8-248; but see also R v Tuegel [2000] 2 All ER 872, ; [2002] 2 Cr App R 361, 381, per Rose LJ. The cases cited by Miss Moonshiram relate to jury trial, where the issue is whether adverse questioning by the judge may unfairly influence the jury s thinking. They are less directly material to a trial by a judge sitting without a jury. It is nevertheless of importance that even if judges may genuinely be keeping an open mind, they should not conduct trials in a manner which gives the impression that they are hostile to the case made on either side. Their Lordships have carefully considered the course of the trial as a whole and have concluded that although they strongly deprecate questioning by a judge in the manner which appears to have been adopted by the magistrate, it was not of sufficiently central significance in the present case to affect the overall fairness of the trial and justify setting the magistrate s finding aside. 22. The final issue argued by the appellant s counsel was that the magistrate drew incorrect inferences from the evidence against the appellant and that the Supreme Court wrongly assumed from the remark attributed to the appellant s counsel that he had conceded

11 that the magistrate was right to have found that the appellant had guilty knowledge. Their Lordships feel it necessary to repeat what they have said many times, that it is not the function of the Judicial Committee to act as a second Court of Criminal Appeal. As Lord Hope of Craighead put it in Stafford v The State [1999] 1 WLR 2026, 2029: Save in exceptional circumstances, the Judicial Committee will not embark upon a rehearing of issues such as the weight which may properly be given to the evidence or the inferences which may properly be drawn from it. These are matters which will be left to the Court of Appeal. Its decision as to whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction will not normally be reviewed by this Board. The Supreme Court had the advantage of seeing and hearing counsel appearing for the appellant before them, and were in the best position to determine what he intended to convey by what he said in his reply. It may also be supposed that the Supreme Court were satisfied that the concession, if such it was, was properly made and that the magistrate was justified in drawing the inferences of which complaint was made. Their Lordships do not propose to go any further into this issue. 23. Their Lordships accordingly conclude that none of the grounds of appeal put forward has been made out and dismiss the appeal with costs.

Rajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an

Rajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an Rajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption. 2010 SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an appeal from the Intermediate Court where the Appellant

More information

BERLINWASSER INTERNATIONAL AG MAURITIUS v BENYDIN L.R IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS. Berlinwasser International AG Mauritius

BERLINWASSER INTERNATIONAL AG MAURITIUS v BENYDIN L.R IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS. Berlinwasser International AG Mauritius BERLINWASSER INTERNATIONAL AG MAURITIUS v BENYDIN L.R 2017 SCJ 120 Record No. 6823 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS In the matter of:- Berlinwasser International AG Mauritius Appellant v L.R. Benydin

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG)

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG) REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO: A 100/2008 DATE:26/08/2011 REPORTABLE In the matter between LEPHOI MOREMOHOLO APPELLANT and THE STATE RESPONDENT Criminal

More information

CARL KIATIKA NGAWHIKA Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. J U Mooney for Appellant JEL Carruthers for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

CARL KIATIKA NGAWHIKA Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. J U Mooney for Appellant JEL Carruthers for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA297/2017 [2017] NZCA 535 BETWEEN AND CARL KIATIKA NGAWHIKA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 15 November 2017 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison, Lang and

More information

JOSEPH MWAMBA KALENGA. SAKALA, CJ, MUYOVWE and MUSONDA, JJS On the 6 th December, 2011 and 8 th May, 2012

JOSEPH MWAMBA KALENGA. SAKALA, CJ, MUYOVWE and MUSONDA, JJS On the 6 th December, 2011 and 8 th May, 2012 IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT NDOLA (Criminal Jurisdiction) SCZ/103/2011 BETWEEN: JOSEPH MWAMBA KALENGA APPELLANT VS THE PEOPLE RESPONDENT Coram: SAKALA, CJ, MUYOVWE and MUSONDA, JJS On the

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2006 BETWEEN: LAURIANO RAMIREZ Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley President The Hon. Mr. Justice

More information

Cotton, T. (2010) 'Court of appeal: Confession evidence and the circumstances requiring a voir dire', Journal of Criminal Law, 74 (5), pp

Cotton, T. (2010) 'Court of appeal: Confession evidence and the circumstances requiring a voir dire', Journal of Criminal Law, 74 (5), pp TeesRep - Teesside's Research Repository Court of appeal: Confession evidence and the circumstances requiring a voir dire Item type Authors Citation DOI Publisher Journal Additional Link Rights Article

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA MEDIA SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL FROM The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal DATE 29 September 2015 STATUS Immediate Negondeni

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v MCE [2015] QCA 4 PARTIES: R v MCE (appellant) FILE NO: CA No 186 of 2014 DC No 198 of 2012 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal against

More information

IN THE CAPE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 153/2008. In the matter between: BRENDAN FAAS.

IN THE CAPE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 153/2008. In the matter between: BRENDAN FAAS. IN THE CAPE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: CASE NO: 153/2008 BRENDAN FAAS Appellant vs THE STATE Respondent JUDGMENT: 29 APRIL 2008 Meer, J: [1]

More information

BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS 274/01. THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Respondent J U D G M E N T

BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS 274/01. THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Respondent J U D G M E N T Sneller Verbatim/MLS IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS 274/01 2003-03-24 In the matter between M KOAI Applicant and THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Respondent J U D G

More information

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA82/2014 [2014] NZCA 304 BETWEEN AND TOESE

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT RISTO JOVAN WYATT, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D12-4377 [ May 20, 2015 ] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth

More information

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA FRENCH C, KIEFEL, BELL, GAGELER AND KEANE DANG KHOA NGUYEN APPELLANT AND THE QUEEN RESPONDENT Nguyen v The Queen [2013] HCA 32 27 une 2013 M30/2013 ORDER 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. WM Appellee Trial Court No.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. WM Appellee Trial Court No. [Cite as State v. Robbins, 2012-Ohio-3862.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WM-11-012 Appellee Trial Court No. 10 CR 103 v. Barry

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Citation: R. v. Moman (R.), 2011 MBCA 34 Date: 20110413 Docket: AR 10-30-07421 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) C. J. Mainella and ) O. A. Siddiqui (Respondent) Applicant

More information

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL RS and SS (Exclusion of appellant from hearing) Pakistan [2008] UKAIT 00012 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Date of Hearing: 18 December 2007 Before: Mr C M G

More information

DAVID STANLEY TRANTER Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

DAVID STANLEY TRANTER Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985 AND S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE

More information

JUDGMENT. Lamusse Sek Sum & Co v Late Bai Rehmatbai Waqf

JUDGMENT. Lamusse Sek Sum & Co v Late Bai Rehmatbai Waqf [2012] UKPC 14 Privy Council Appeal No 0066 of 2011 JUDGMENT Lamusse Sek Sum & Co v Late Bai Rehmatbai Waqf From the Supreme Court of Mauritius before Lord Hope Lord Brown Lord Mance Lord Dyson Lord Sumption

More information

[1] This appeal, which is against both the conviction and the sentence, is with leave of

[1] This appeal, which is against both the conviction and the sentence, is with leave of P a g e 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA) CASE NO: A259/10 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED. 18/04/2013.. DATE... SIGNATURE In the

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 300/2013 Not reportable In the matter between: LEEROY BENSON Appellant and THE STATE Respondent Neutral citation: Benson v the State (300/13)

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 30 June 2017 On 4 July Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SMITH.

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 30 June 2017 On 4 July Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SMITH. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: RP/00079/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 30 June 2017 On 4 July 2017 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.9 OF 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.9 OF 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.9 OF 2015 Originating from Bunda District Court, Economic Case No. 18 OF 2012,Kassonso PDM) WESIKO MALYOKI...APPELLANT

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CRAIG. Between MR ABDUL KADIR SAID. and. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Respondent

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CRAIG. Between MR ABDUL KADIR SAID. and. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Respondent IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/00950/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Royal Courts of Justice Oral determination given immediately following the hearing

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NATAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION AR 274/05 NKOSINATHI ELIJAH MAPHUMULO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NATAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION AR 274/05 NKOSINATHI ELIJAH MAPHUMULO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA REPORTABLE NATAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION AR 274/05 In the matter between: NKOSINATHI ELIJAH MAPHUMULO Appellant and THE STATE Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Hurt J On 6 December

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACT. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 8 th February 2018 On 23 rd February Before

THE IMMIGRATION ACT. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 8 th February 2018 On 23 rd February Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACT Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 8 th February 2018 On 23 rd February 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/02026/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/02026/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/02026/2017 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 30 August 2017 On 11 September 2017 Before DEPUTY

More information

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) DC/00014/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) DC/00014/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) DC/00014/2016 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Bradford Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 March 2018 On 27 April 2018 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr M.E SETUMU COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT : ADV. NONTENJWA

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr M.E SETUMU COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT : ADV. NONTENJWA . Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses

More information

JUDGMENT. MARK MINNIES First Appellant. IEKERAAM HINI Second Appellant. MARK ADAMS Third Appellant. LINFORD PILOT Fourth Appellant

JUDGMENT. MARK MINNIES First Appellant. IEKERAAM HINI Second Appellant. MARK ADAMS Third Appellant. LINFORD PILOT Fourth Appellant THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Case No: 881/2011 Reportable MARK MINNIES First Appellant IEKERAAM HINI Second Appellant MARK ADAMS Third Appellant LINFORD PILOT

More information

HEARING DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS

HEARING DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Jawad Raza Heard on: Thursday 7 and Friday 8 June 2018 Location: ACCA Head Offices,

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Columbus House, Newport Sent to parties on: On 3 April 2017 On 23 May Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE L MURRAY

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Columbus House, Newport Sent to parties on: On 3 April 2017 On 23 May Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE L MURRAY Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/06052/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Columbus House, Newport Sent to parties on: On 3 April 2017 On 23 May 2017 Before DEPUTY UPPER

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. Delivered the 25 th February 2009

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. Delivered the 25 th February 2009 Elaheebocus v. The State of Mauritius (Mauritius) [2009] UKPC 5 (25 February 2009) Privy Council Appeal No 75 of 2007 HAROON RASHID ELAHEEBOCUS Appellant v. THE STATE OF MAURITIUS Respondent FROM THE COURT

More information

The facts of these cases are described in detail in our judgment of 7 July 1999 and we do not repeat them now.

The facts of these cases are described in detail in our judgment of 7 July 1999 and we do not repeat them now. R v Allen COURT OF APPEAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION LAWS LJ, MOSES J AND JUDGE CRANE Alan Newman QC and James Kessler for Allen. Amanda Hardy and Tina Davey for Dimsey. Peter Rook QC and Jonathan Fisher for the

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. (Held at Johannesburg) Case No: J118/98. In the matter between: COMPUTICKET. Applicant. and

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. (Held at Johannesburg) Case No: J118/98. In the matter between: COMPUTICKET. Applicant. and IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Held at Johannesburg) Case No: J118/98 In the matter between: COMPUTICKET Applicant and MARCUS, M H, NO AND OTHERS Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Date of Hearing:

More information

TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS

TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario Tribunal

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) UNREPORTABLE In the matter between: Date: 2009-02-06 Case Number: A306/2007 AARON TSHOSANE Appellant and THE STATE Respondent JUDGMENT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.7 OF 2003 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: EGBERT HANLEY and THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Appellant Respondent Before: The Hon. Mr. Adrian Saunders

More information

JUDGMENT. [1] This is an appeal in terms of section 65 of Act 51 of 1977 ( the Act ) against a

JUDGMENT. [1] This is an appeal in terms of section 65 of Act 51 of 1977 ( the Act ) against a IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO.: CA&R14/10 In the matter between: BASHARAD ALI Appellant and THE STATE Respondent JUDGMENT GROGAN AJ: [1] This is an appeal in terms

More information

HEARING PARTLY HEARD IN PRIVATE*

HEARING PARTLY HEARD IN PRIVATE* HEARING PARTLY HEARD IN PRIVATE* *The Committee has made a determination in this case that includes some private information. That information has been omitted from the text. RAK-LATOS, Bozena Registration

More information

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/02086/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/02086/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/02086/2017 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Manchester Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 23 October 2017 On 25 October 2017 Before Deputy

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. Delivered the 21st June 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. Delivered the 21st June 2006 Jauffur v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Mauritius) [2006] UKPC 32 (21 June 2006) Privy Council Appeal No 6 of 2005 Abdul Raouf Jauffur The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Appellant Respondent [2006]UKPC 32

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Mag. Appeal No. 13 of 2011 BETWEEN DAVENDRA OUJAR Appellant AND P.C. DANRAJ ROOPAN #15253 Respondent PANEL: P. WEEKES, J A R. NARINE, J A Appearances: Mr. Jagdeo

More information

RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY DEAN MCDOWELL

RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY DEAN MCDOWELL RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY DEAN MCDOWELL 1. Mr McDowell a licensed trainer, has lodged an appeal against the decision of 12 March 2015 of the Stewards appointed under

More information

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 ARTHUR LAMAR RODGERS STATE OF MARYLAND

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 ARTHUR LAMAR RODGERS STATE OF MARYLAND UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2879 September Term, 2015 ARTHUR LAMAR RODGERS v. STATE OF MARYLAND Beachley, Shaw Geter, Thieme, Raymond G., Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as State v. Knowles, 2011-Ohio-4477.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : v. : No. 10AP-119 (C.P.C. No. 04CR-07-4891) Alawwal A. Knowles,

More information

REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK APPEAL JUDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK APPEAL JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA NOT REPORTABLE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK APPEAL JUDGMENT Case no: CA 123/2016 SAUL MBAISA APPELLANT versus THE STATE RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Mbaisa v S (CA

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [WESTERN CAPE: HIGH COURT CAPE TOWN]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [WESTERN CAPE: HIGH COURT CAPE TOWN] IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [WESTERN CAPE: HIGH COURT CAPE TOWN] CASE NO: A288/2008 In the matter between: M. MINNIES First Appellant IEKERAAM HINI Second Appellant MARK J ADAMS Third Appellant LINFORD

More information

RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY NEIL DAY

RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY NEIL DAY RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY NEIL DAY 1. Mr Day a licensed trainer, has lodged an appeal against the decision of 13 March 2015 of the Stewards appointed under The Australian

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 20, 2000

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 20, 2000 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 20, 2000 SHANTA FONTON MCKAY V. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 97-B-786

More information

IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 34 ARC 73/11. Plaintiff. VINCENT SINGH Defendant

IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 34 ARC 73/11. Plaintiff. VINCENT SINGH Defendant IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 34 ARC 73/11 IN THE MATTER OF an application for compliance order BETWEEN AND NOEL COVENTRY Plaintiff VINCENT SINGH Defendant Hearing: 23 February 2012 (Heard

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT NOT REPORTABLE Case No: 100/13 In the matter between: GEOFFREY MARK STEYN Appellant and THE STATE Respondent Neutral citation: Geoffrey Mark Steyn v

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Case no: JA90/2013 Not Reportable In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS TAOLE ELIAS MOHLALISI First Appellant

More information

The Panel found Dr Brew s fitness to practise was impaired and determined to erase his name from the Register.

The Panel found Dr Brew s fitness to practise was impaired and determined to erase his name from the Register. Appeals Circular A 04 /15 08 May 2015 To: Fitness to Practise Panel Panellists Legal Assessors Copy: Interim Orders Panel Panellists Panel Secretaries Medical Defence Organisations Employer Liaison Advisers

More information

JUDGMENT. [1] In the Court a quo the appellant was refused bail by the Port Elizabeth

JUDGMENT. [1] In the Court a quo the appellant was refused bail by the Port Elizabeth IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH Case no: CA&R15/2016 Date heard: 25 th January 2017 Date delivered: 2 nd February 2017 In the matter between: LUTHANDO MFINI

More information

Since the CC did not appeal, it is not necessary to set out the sentences imposed on it.

Since the CC did not appeal, it is not necessary to set out the sentences imposed on it. Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape v Parker Summary by PJ Nel This is a criminal law case where the State requested the Supreme Court of Appeal to decide whether a VAT vendor, who has misappropriated

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG) SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST DIVISION,

More information

DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS

DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Ioannis Andronikou Heard on: Tuesday, 25 July 2017 and Wednesday, 26 July 2017 Location:

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D., 2004 (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) APPEAL FROM THE INFERIOR COURT FOR THE BELZE JUDICIAL DISTRICT D E C I S I O N

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D., 2004 (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) APPEAL FROM THE INFERIOR COURT FOR THE BELZE JUDICIAL DISTRICT D E C I S I O N IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D., 2004 (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) APPEAL FROM THE INFERIOR COURT FOR THE BELZE JUDICIAL DISTRICT INFERIOR APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2004 BETWEEN: (ANTHONY WHITE ( ( ( AND ( ( (EDITH

More information

FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the appeal between:- Appeal No. : A176/2008 BRAKIE SAMUEL MOLOI Appellant and THE STATE Respondent CORAM: EBRAHIM, J et LEKALE, AJ HEARD

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Graham, 2008-Ohio-3985.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90437 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v S [2000] QCA 256 PARTIES: R v S (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 80 of 2000 DC No 80 of 1999 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal against

More information

Circuit Court for Cecil County Case No. 07-K UNREPORTED

Circuit Court for Cecil County Case No. 07-K UNREPORTED Circuit Court for Cecil County Case No. 07-K-07-000161 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2115 September Term, 2017 DANIEL IAN FIELDS v. STATE OF MARYLAND Leahy, Shaw Geter, Thieme,

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. Delivered the 19 th March 2007

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. Delivered the 19 th March 2007 Bissonauth v. The Sugar Fund Insurance Board (Mauritius ) [2007] UKPC 17 (19 March 2007) Privy Council Appeal No 68 of 2005 Premchandra Bissonauth The Sugar Fund Insurance Bond v. Appellant Respondent

More information

JUDGMENT. Meadows and others (Appellants) v The Attorney General and another (Respondents) (Jamaica)

JUDGMENT. Meadows and others (Appellants) v The Attorney General and another (Respondents) (Jamaica) Michaelmas Term [2017] UKPC 29 Privy Council Appeal No 0036 of 2016 JUDGMENT Meadows and others (Appellants) v The Attorney General and another (Respondents) (Jamaica) From the Court of Appeal of Jamaica

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CR. DAVID CARL SWINGLE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CR. DAVID CARL SWINGLE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed February 27, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-00430-CR DAVID CARL SWINGLE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from

More information

VN (Chicago Convention s 86(4)) Iran [2010] UKUT 303 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before

VN (Chicago Convention s 86(4)) Iran [2010] UKUT 303 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) VN (Chicago Convention s 86(4)) Iran [2010] UKUT 303 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 29 June 2010 Before Mr C M G Ockelton, Vice President

More information

EILEEN LOUVET REAL ESTATE (PTY) LTD A F C PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CO (PTY) LTD. CORAM: VAN HEERDEN, E.M. GROSSKOPF JJA et NICHOLAS AJA

EILEEN LOUVET REAL ESTATE (PTY) LTD A F C PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CO (PTY) LTD. CORAM: VAN HEERDEN, E.M. GROSSKOPF JJA et NICHOLAS AJA LL Case No 462/1987 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA APPELLATE DIVISION In the matter between: EILEEN LOUVET REAL ESTATE (PTY) LTD Appellant and A F C PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CO (PTY) LTD Respondent CORAM:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Dawson v Jewiss; Thompson v Jewiss [2004] QCA 374 PARTIES: STUART BEVAN DAWSON (plaintiff/respondent) v HENRY WILLIAM JEWISS also known as HARRY JEWISS (defendant/appellant)

More information

VICTORIAN COUNTY COURT SPEED CAMERA CASE

VICTORIAN COUNTY COURT SPEED CAMERA CASE VICTORIAN COUNTY COURT SPEED CAMERA CASE Summary On the 20th October 2011, an appeal was heard in the Victorian County Court. The case of Agar v Baker was heard by Judge Allen. This case involved a mobile

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 21 September 2015 On 18 December Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KOPIECZEK. Between

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 21 September 2015 On 18 December Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KOPIECZEK. Between IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DC/00018/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Royal Courts of Justice Determination & Reasons Promulgated On 21 September 2015

More information

Marley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd

Marley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd Page 1 The West Indian Reports/Volume 46 /Marley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd - (1995) 46 WIR 233 Marley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd (1995) 46 WIR 233 JUDICIAL

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC KIWIBANK LIMITED Defendant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC KIWIBANK LIMITED Defendant IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2015-404-694 [2015] NZHC 1417 BETWEEN AND E-TRANS INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LIMITED Plaintiff KIWIBANK LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 23 April 2015 Appearances:

More information

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, No. CC

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, No. CC 2004 PA Super 473 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF Appellee : PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : : : RUTH ANN REDMAN, : Appellant : No. 174 WDA 2004 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence in the

More information

JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent

JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA361/2016 [2017] NZCA 69 BETWEEN AND JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: Court: Counsel: Judgment: 15 February 2017 (with an application

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. Vincent Olebogang Magano and

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. Vincent Olebogang Magano and THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Case no: 849/12 Not reportable Vincent Olebogang Magano and The State Appellant Respondent Neutral citation: Magano v S (849/12)[2013]

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: MAY 5, 2017; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2016-CA-000393-MR ANTONIO ELLISON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE CHARLES

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN High Court Case No.: A97/12 DPP Referece No.:.9/2/5/1-56/12 In the appeal between- THULANI DYANTYANA Appellant and THE STATE Respondent

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and THE QUEEN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and THE QUEEN TORTOLA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIM. APP. NO.1 OF 1996 BETWEEN: BASSANO HENDRICKS and THE QUEEN Appellant Respondent Before: The Hon. Mr. G.M. Dennis Byron Chief Justice [Ag.] The Hon. Mr. Satrohan Singh

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D N HARRIS. Between. and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D N HARRIS. Between. and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/43426/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Manchester Determination Promulgated On 10 th July 2014 On 2 nd September 2014 Before DEPUTY UPPER

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v M [2003] QCA 380 PARTIES: R v M (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 92 of 2003 DC No 334 of 2003 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal

More information

IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG CASE NO: CAF 7/10. TSHEPO BOSIELO Appellant

IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG CASE NO: CAF 7/10. TSHEPO BOSIELO Appellant IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG In the matter between:- CASE NO: CAF 7/10 TSHEPO BOSIELO Appellant ATANG BOSIELO First Second Appellant and THE STATE Respondent FULL BENCH APPEAL HENDRICKS J; LANDMAN

More information

Chiniah v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Mauritius) [2007] UKPC 23 (17 April 2007) Privy Council Appeal No 101 of 2005

Chiniah v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Mauritius) [2007] UKPC 23 (17 April 2007) Privy Council Appeal No 101 of 2005 Chiniah v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Mauritius) [2007] UKPC 23 (17 April 2007) Privy Council Appeal No 101 of 2005 Jayram Chiniah The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Appellant Respondent FROM THE COURT

More information

Supreme Court of the State of New York Second Department Appellate Term 9th and 10th Judicial Districts Appellate Term

Supreme Court of the State of New York Second Department Appellate Term 9th and 10th Judicial Districts Appellate Term Supreme Court of the State of New York Second Department Appellate Term 9th and 10th Judicial Districts Appellate Term THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK --Against-- Respondent, ERIC ROSENBAUM, Appellant.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: GAWA CASSIEM APPELLANT and THE STATE RESPONDENT CORAM: SCHUTZ JA, MELUNSKY et MTHIYANE AJJA DATE OF HEARING: 15 FEBRUARY 2001 DELIVERY

More information

REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION

REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION IN THE MATTER OF A DISCIPLINE HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO BY-LAW NO. 10 OF THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO John Van Dyk Respondent This document also

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 13 June 2013 On 24 June 2013 Prepared: 14 June Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O CONNOR. Between

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 13 June 2013 On 24 June 2013 Prepared: 14 June Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O CONNOR. Between Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Sent On 13 June 2013 On 24 June 2013 Prepared: 14 June 2013 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O CONNOR

More information

IN THE SEYCHELLES COURT OF APPEAL. The Mauritius Commercial Bank (Sey) Ltd Of Caravelle House, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles (1 st Defendant)

IN THE SEYCHELLES COURT OF APPEAL. The Mauritius Commercial Bank (Sey) Ltd Of Caravelle House, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles (1 st Defendant) IN THE SEYCHELLES COURT OF APPEAL The Mauritius Commercial Bank (Sey) Ltd Of Caravelle House, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles APPELLANT (1 st Defendant) VS M/S Kantilal of Mumbai, India herein represented By

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 21 January 2015 On 11 February Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DEANS. Between MR AQIB HUSSAIN.

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 21 January 2015 On 11 February Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DEANS. Between MR AQIB HUSSAIN. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/01309/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Glasgow Determination Promulgated On 21 January 2015 On 11 February 2015 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A128585

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A128585 Filed 3/10/11 P. v. Youngs CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication

More information

Alexander Blackman. In the Court Martial Appeal Court. Judgment. 21 st December 2016

Alexander Blackman. In the Court Martial Appeal Court. Judgment. 21 st December 2016 JU Alexander Blackman In the Court Martial Appeal Court Judgment 21 st December 2016 Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd CJ and Sweeney J : 1. The court has before it this afternoon three applications. First an application

More information

PROCEDURE application for stay in proceedings - refused. - and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE HARRIET MORGAN

PROCEDURE application for stay in proceedings - refused. - and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE HARRIET MORGAN Appeal number: TC/13/06946 PROCEDURE application for stay in proceedings - refused FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL TAX CHAMBER JUMBOGATE LIMITED Appellant - and - THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE & CUSTOMS

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2006- COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA- RAMADHANI, C.J., MROSO, J.A. And, KAJI J.A. NYEKA KOU Vs. REPUBLIC (Appeal from the Decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha)-

More information

ICTR REGISTRY THE HAGUE -+-->-+ APPEALS L"NIT. ~Is -- Action: PG- Copied To:I}U Ju ~, ~ s April 2001 'Jmor,~~r.t~:~~l-vrl~~

ICTR REGISTRY THE HAGUE -+-->-+ APPEALS LNIT. ~Is -- Action: PG- Copied To:I}U Ju ~, ~ s April 2001 'Jmor,~~r.t~:~~l-vrl~~ Received: 6/ 4/01 11 :32; 0031705128932 -> ictr; Page g 06104 '01 FRI 08:40 FAX 0031705128932, '-./ '->

More information

Before: SIR TERENCE ETHERTON, MR LADY JUSTICE RAFFERTY and LADY JUSTICE SHARP Between:

Before: SIR TERENCE ETHERTON, MR LADY JUSTICE RAFFERTY and LADY JUSTICE SHARP Between: Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWCA Civ 78 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT MR JUSTICE WALKER CO/4607/2014 Before: Case No: C1/2015/2746

More information

Gupta (Dr. Prabha ) v The General Medical Council (GMC) [2001] APP.L.R. 12/18

Gupta (Dr. Prabha ) v The General Medical Council (GMC) [2001] APP.L.R. 12/18 Privy Council Appeal No. 44 of 2001 from the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council before Lords Steyn, Hobhouse, Rodger. 18 th December 2001 JUDGMENT delivered by Lord Rodger of

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Stubberfield v Lippiatt & Anor [2007] QCA 90 PARTIES: JOHN RICHARD STUBBERFIELD (plaintiff/appellant) v FREDERICK WALTON LIPPIATT (first defendant/first respondent)

More information

Reasons for Decision. Harness Racing New South Wales ( HRNSW ) Steward s Inquiry Mr Greg Bennett

Reasons for Decision. Harness Racing New South Wales ( HRNSW ) Steward s Inquiry Mr Greg Bennett Reasons for Decision Harness Racing New South Wales ( HRNSW ) Steward s Inquiry Mr Greg Bennett Stewards Panel: R Sanders (Chairman), M Prentice & C Paul The Charges: 1. On 7 February 2014, Mr Bennett

More information

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 1996 ROBERT EUGENE CASE STATE OF MARYLAND

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 1996 ROBERT EUGENE CASE STATE OF MARYLAND REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1547 September Term, 1996 ROBERT EUGENE CASE v. STATE OF MARYLAND Murphy, C.J. Kenney, Byrnes, JJ. Opinion by Murphy, C.J. Filed: November 26, 1997

More information