Re Chief of Police v Powell

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Glasgow, J.
• Judgment Date: 23 July 1968
• Neutral Citation: KN 1969 HC 5
• Docket Number: No. 108 of 1967
• Date: 23 July 1968

High Court

Glasgow, J.

No. 108 of 1967

Re: Chief of Police

and

Powell

Appearances:

Mr. Lee Moore for the Chief of Police

Dr. W. V. Herbert for the defendants.

Jurisdiction - Magistrate's Court

Facts: The appellant was charged with another person on a separate but similar charge relating to the conduct of a public speech in respect of general elections. Whether the magistrate had jurisdiction to hear the case.

Held: That the proceedings in the Magistrate's Court were a nullity since neither the Magistrate's Code of Procedure Act nor the Public Meeting and Processions Act 1969 contained provisions empowering a magistrate to hear at the same time similar complaints by the same complainant against separate defendants. Order made that the cases be begun again and heard separately.

Glasgow, J.

1 On the 1 ^st May 1969, a complaint numbered 312/69 was made before the Magistrate, District “A” by the Chief of Police against Michael Powell for that he “on the 9 ^th day of April 1969, at Basseterre in Parish of St. George in the Magisterial District “A” in the State of St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla at a Meeting held on the premises commonly known as the Peoples Action Movement Headquarters situate at Lockhart Street did use noisy instruments to wit loudspeakers and amplifiers during the course of the said Public Meeting without having first obtained the permission in writing of the Chief of Police, contrary to s. 3 (1) of the Public Meetings and Processions Act, 1969, No. 4 of 1969 of the Laws of the State of St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla”.

2 On the same day the Chief of Police made two other complaints before the Magistrate: complaint No. 313/69 against Richard Caines, and complaint No. 314/69 against William v Herbert Jnr. All three complaints were in identical terms.

3 The three cases were heard together in June 1969.

4 Five witnesses gave evidence on behalf of the prosecution. The defendants Powell and Gaines were represented by Dr. W. V. Herbert, Barrister-at-Law, who was the defendant in the remaining case which he conducted himself.

5 At the close of the case for the prosecution Dr. Herbert stated:–

“I submit that there is a point involving fundamental rights, and I would like to make application, under s. 16 (3) of the Constitution, to have this matter referred to the High Court, for it seems to me that the legislation under which the defendants are charged offends against ss. 10 and 11 of the Constitution…”

6 Dr. Herbert also submitted –

• a. That the evidence does not show that a public meeting was held, and

• b. That the evidence does not show that any of the three defendants used a noisy instrument.

7 Submissions (a) and (b) above were overruled by the Magistrate.

8 The Magistrate next stated his findings of fact, which were based on the evidence given by the Prosecution, and he came to the conclusion that a prima facie case had been made out against each of the three defendants.

9 The Magistrate purported to refer to the High Court, by way of case stated pursuant to rule 7 of the Supreme Court...