Roberts v R
| Jurisdiction | Bermuda |
| Judgment Date | 22 November 1991 |
| Date | 22 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1991 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Bermuda) |
In the Court of Appeal for Bermuda
Roberts, P.
da Costa, J.A.
Henry, J.A.
Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1991
and
Mr. R.A. Hector for the Appellant
Mr. B. Calhoun for the Crown
Forfeiture of bond — Estreatment of bail — Whether appellant had breached condition of bail — Defendant failed to appear for mention in Supreme Court
Roberts, P.
On 2nd July, 1990 the Chief Justice, on the failure of the appellant, Troy Rawlins, to appear at his trial in the Supreme Court, ordered ‘Bonds estreated. Warrant of arrest to issue.’
On 28th May, 1991, an order was issued to the appellant ‘to attend court to show cause why an accused person should not be ordered to pay the recognizance to the court order dated 2nd July, 1990’.
The notice recited that the above recognizance (of $30,000) had already been estreated and that the appellant should attend before the Supreme Court on 3rd June, 1991 to ‘show cause why you should not be ordered to pay the said recognizance of $30,000.
The notice is signed by the Registrar, but does not indicate at whose instance the notice was issued. We assume that it was issued by the court of its own motion.
At the conclusion of this hearing,. on 3rd June, 1991, the Chief Justice ordered that the full sum of $30,000 should be forfeited and that, if this was not paid, there should be a sentence of 3 months imprisonment in lieu. The appellant was given one month to pay.
The appellant now appeals against the latter order.
The appellant was charged on two counts, of possession of a controlled drug intended for supply and possession of equipment fit for use with a controlled drug.
The indictment was dated 31st May, 1990. The appellant was committed for trial on 9th May, 1990.
He was originally given bail by a magistrate on 20th February, 1990, to appear before a magistrate on 5th March, 1990, on condition that he should forfeit $30,000 if he failed to attend and on condition that he deposited his travel documents.
On 9th May, he was committed to the Supreme Court at the next sessions on bail, on condition that he should forfeit $30,000 if he failed to appear. (There was no reference to travel documents).
The magistrate, in the latter case, appears to have used Form T of section 21 of the Indictable Offences Act, though the form does not say so. That form is signed by the appellant.
On 1st June, the Registrar of the Supreme Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial