Shabazz v R 1993 Criminal Appeal No. 8
Jurisdiction | Bermuda |
Judgment Date | 04 March 1994 |
Date | 04 March 1994 |
Docket Number | Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1993 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Bermuda) |
In the Court of Appeal for Bermuda
da Costa, P. (Actg.)
Astwood, J. A.
Kempster. J. A.
Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1993
and
Mr. Archie Warner from Lord, Simmons & Warner for the Appellant.
Ms. Sharon Kenny for the Attorney-General's Chambers
Orsi v Legal Contribution Trust [1976] WAR 74
Lowden v R (1982) 68 CCC (2nd) 531
R v CuthbertsonELR [1981] AC 470
Benson v BensonELR [1941] P 90
Criminal Code 1907, s. 336
Appeal against conviction — Stealing — Judge gave jury no direction — Whether evidence shows criminal behaviour — Bank loan — Direction by implication — Bank loaned appellant money on verbal agreement that moneys would be used toward payment of mortgage
Kempster. J. A.
This is the judgment of the Court.
On the 29th March, 1993, on the verdict of a jury, Calvin Okang Shabazz was convicted by Ground, J. of stealing contrary to Section 341 as read with Sections 332 and 336 of The Criminal Code Act, 1907. Against that conviction he appeals to this Court and it will only be necessary to refer to one ground; namely that the learned trial judge erred in law in ruling that there was prima facie evidence allowing the jury to infer a ‘direction’ for the purposes of Section 336. It was common ground that there was no specific ‘direction’ whether made orally or in writing. This submission was not made in quite so simple a form at trial but it matters not since it was the duty of the judge to direct a verdict of ‘not guilty’ at the close of the prosecution case if the evidence adduced would not have rendered a conviction safe.
Economically summarised, the evidence by then before the jury demonstrated that the appellant, a trusted officer of the Bank of Bermuda Limited, having become used to obtaining unsecured loans or overdraft facilities from his employers virtually on demand, on the 26th July, 1988, orally agreed with the Bank, by Mr. Henry Smith, to borrow from them $310,000.00 so that he might pay off the overdraft on his current account with them together with another loan, carry out works and improvements on the property which he occupied, called ‘Cosie Ville’, and, most important for the purposes of this appeal, discharge his indebtedness to L. P. Gutteridge Limited in the sum of $141,000.00, recover the title deeds of his property, which were held as security under a mortgage, and deliver them to the Bank as security for their loan to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bean v Cox (Police Constable)
...by her merely because she did not immediately apply all monies received to her rent and for n other purpose: Calvin Shabbaz v RBDLR[1994] Bda LR 3. In respect of the elements of the offence of forgery, crucial to his submissions on the forgery and uttering charges, Counsel referred to De La......