Glasgow v Young, Chief Magistrate
| Jurisdiction | St Vincent and the Grenadines |
| Judge | Henry, J. |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | VC 2014 HC 31 |
| Docket Number | 34 of 2014 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Vincent) |
| Date | 28 July 2014 |
High Court
Henry, J. (Ag.)
34 of 2014
Mrs. Kay Bacchus Browne and Ms. Nicole Sylvester for the claimant
Mrs. Anneke Russell holding for Mr. Duane Daniel, with Ms. Cerepha Harper for the defendant
Civil practice and procedure - Magistrate's Court — Application to obtain order for total or partial remission of a fine — Whether the magistrate has jurisdiction to find someone in contempt — Whether the procedure was procedurally unfair — Whether the Act create the offence of contempt in the face of the court — Whether the claimant was guilty under the Act — No express provision to charge or try defendant for criminal contempt in the fact of the court — Inferior court does not possess the authority to punish for contempt in the fact of the court — Magistrate acted ultra vires — Conviction against the claimant overturned.
Henry, J. (Ag.): By Fixed Date Claim Form filed on February 10th, 2014, the claimant brought an action against the learned Chief Magistrate of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines to obtain an order for total or partial remission of a fine of $200.00 imposed against him for contempt of Court pursuant to section 32(3) of the Magistrate's Act Cap. 30 of the 2009 Revised Edition of the Laws of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (Hereafter referred to as “the Act”). The claimant also seeks total repayment of the fine.
The facts in this case arise out of events which unfolded at the Serious Offences Court, Traffic Division on January 22nd, 2014 before the defendant who was the presiding magistrate at the time. It is alleged by the claimant and not denied by the defendant that the defendant was at the time dealing with a case involving a defendant, one Julian Moore (aka Andre Moore), and giving him instructions. The claimant entered the Courtroom and proceeded to the witness box, apparently surprising the defendant. The claimant was ordered by the defendant to leave the box as the defendant was not yet ready for him. By his own admission to the defendant at the time and again during the trial of the instant claim, the claimant turned to leave the witness box and sucked his teeth almost simultaneously. The defendant held him in contempt of Court and fined him $200.00 forthwith. The claimant now seeks relief from payment of part or all of this fine.
In his Affidavit filed on February 10th, 2014 the claimant deposed that he is an Inspector of Police in the Royal Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Police Force, has served as an officer for over 28 years and has never been disciplined for any offence. He avers that around 11:15am on January 22nd, 2014, he was on duty at the Serious Offences Court in Kingstown as investigating officer in connection with a traffic matter involving COP v. Andre Moore (The defendant in that matter was charged with failure to wear a seatbelt). He states that he was sitting outside the Court waiting for the matter to be called when the auxiliary officer opened the door to the Courtroom and told him that he was required in the witness box. He continues that in compliance with that information he proceeded to enter the Courtroom and enter the witness box, whereupon the defendant told him to get out of the box as she was not ready for him yet. He said that he looked at the auxiliary officer as he was leaving the witness box and sucked his teeth at the officer. This he said was done “unconsciously” as he had no intention to be disrespectful of or insulting to the Court or in any way to exhibit any form of misconduct to the Court as he was only reacting to the misinformation provided to him by the junior officer. He records that the Chief Magistrate heard him and was “justifiably upset.”
The claimant states that the defendant then notified him that his action amounted to contempt of Court and fined him $200.00. He said that he attempted to explain what happened to the defendant who refused to hear him until he paid the fine. He paid the fine, then met with the defendant, explained what happened and apologized to her. He indicates that he is acutely aware of his overriding duty to be respectful and Courteous to the Court and that his response towards the junior officer is an aberration. He states that he did not intend to disrespect the defendant or to bring the Court into disrepute. The claimant was cross-examined by learned counsel for the defendant and he maintained that when he sucked his teeth in the Court that day, he “did it at the auxiliary officer because he was reacting to the misinformation which the officer supplied to him”. He insisted that he is of the opinion that it was not disrespectful to the Court”. He states that he did not suck his teeth loud enough for the persons in the Court to hear. He denied that he went to apologize to the defendant because he knew he had been disrespectful to the Court. He responded “it is not the sucking of one's teeth in Court which is disrespectful, it is the manner in which it is done.”
In response to a question in re-examination he said “I was walking out of the box facing the auxiliary Corporal when I sucked my teeth. In my opinion, if when the magistrate had spoken to me I had looked at her and ‘stupes’ my teeth, that would have been disrespectful, and I would be sucking my teeth at the magistrate. I had turned away and my back was turned to the magistrate and I was leaving the witness box.” The claimant was the only witness called in support of his claim.
The only witness for the defendant was Annette Rodriguez, clerk of the Serious Offences Court. In her affidavit filed on April 16th, 2014, she stated that the defendant has left the island to assume her position with the Supreme Court of Belize. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the defendant has assumed the position of High Court judge of the Supreme Court of Belize. Ms. Rodriguez also averred that on the day of the incident, the Court was in session and hearing a matter involving an accused Julian Moore also known as Andre Moore. She attested that the defendant was in the process of explaining the Court procedure to the accused when the claimant suddenly entered the witness box. She stated that the defendant asked the claimant why he was in the box as she was not ready for him and she asked him to step out of the box. She said that he turned and as soon as he stepped down she heard a sound.
Ms. Rodriguez said that the defendant asked the claimant if he had stupsed and he said “yes”. The defendant then told the claimant that she held him in contempt of Court, told him his behavior was unacceptable, fined him $200.00 forthwith and told him to pay the fine. The claimant then left the Courtroom. Ms. Rodriguez explained that she was present later that day when the defendant spoke with the claimant in chambers. At that time, the claimant told the defendant that he had an issue with the auxiliary officer who had instructed him that the Court was ready for him and that his conduct was in response to what the officer had done to cause him this embarrassment. She states that the defendant verbally reprimanded the claimant further for his behavior and lack of self-restraint and told him that his reaction was disrespectful to the Court. She described the claimant as an officer who is known for his fastidious approach with respect to participating in instituting proceedings against those who breach traffic laws and one who “has distinguished himself having prosecuted for many years with such frequency and regularity that he is without question well acquainted with the formalities, the procedures and the respect that is to be accorded the Court.” She also pointed out that “one's mere presence in the Court room places one under a duty to observe due deference and respect to the Court.” She opined that the claimant's sucking of his teeth was in her opinion directed at the Court for having intimated to him that he was to stand down, was a wilful action, which was insulting and disrespectful to the Court.
Ms. Rodriguez was cross-examined by learned counsel Mrs. Kay Bacchus Browne. She indicated that she did not know that Julian Moore was also known as Andre Moore although that was stated in paragraph 4 of her affidavit. She stated that she signed an affidavit which was prepared for her. She testified that the claimant was not asked by the defendant to make a defence, asked to get counsel for the contempt matter or given the right to defend himself for the contempt charge. He was fined forthwith. She said she heard a sound but did not know what it was, she thought it was his or someone else's shoe on the tile. At that time, the claimant's back was towards the defendant as he was leaving the witness box, it was only when he admitted that he stupsed that she realized what the sound was and she was shocked as she knew the officer to have a fastidious approach to doing his job. A few days later she said, the claimant requested to see the defendant to find out which section of the law he was fined under. As far as she is aware that was the first time that the claimant became aware of the section under which he was charged.
Ms. Rodriguez was adamant that the claimant sucked his teeth at the defendant. She insisted “he stupsed soon after the magistrate spoke to him. It was directed at the Court because it was done immediately after he was spoken to and on his leaving the witness box. I could not say if it was a reflex or not… At the point when the stupesing the teeth was done, it was wilful in my opinion.”
In her reasons for decision, the defendant outlined the history, in which she indicated that after she instructed the claimant to get out of the box, “he turned briskly, stepped out of the box and simultaneously sucked his teeth… I was outraged and embarrassed… I cannot say whether he attempted...
To continue reading
Request your trial