Court of Appeal
Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1985
21st November, 1985
SIR JAMES A. SMITH P.
SIR ALBERT L. STAINE J.A.
KENNETH C. HENRY J.A.

Appeal against conviction and sentence of 8 years imprisonment imposed for robbery - Standard of proof - Putting of defence to jury - Appellant had benefit of full and impartial summing up - No merit in appeal - Appeal dismissed.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The Appellant was charged (together with persons unknown with Robbery of the Barclays Bank at Corozal Town in the Northern District of the Supreme Court on the 17th day of August, 1984, of the sum of $926,208.13 or thereabouts in money. He was convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment for 8 years.

Against his conviction and sentence the appellant now appeals.

At the hearing of the Appeal, the Appellant was not represented and argued the appeal on his own behalf. Having heard the Appellant, and the Director of Public Prosecutions in reply the Court dismissed the appeal, and undertook to give its reasons at a later date. Those reasons are now given.

Commencing his submissions, the Appellant, through an interpreter who interpreted from Spanish to English, first referred to the evidence of Inspector Pook. He said he had never lived in Belize. He was a Honduranean national and had lived in Mexico, where he worked as an Industrial Contractor, selling various supplies. He had a furniture factory in Cozumel, in the State of Quintana Roo. In Cozumel he said he lived on Zaragosa Street, and was emphatic that he was not one of the men who robbed the Barclays Bank in Corozal in August of 1984.

Continuing, the Appellant said that in August of 1984, he was in Chetumal, Quintana Roo, and was staying at the Continental Hotel. As a business man he had stayed at this hotel many times. Whilst there in August 1984, the Mexican Police picked him up. Along with the Mexican Police, was a Belizean policeman. The Police found him with $70,000 U.S. Currency, $50,000 Belizean currency and some cheques. He had a cheque for 2,000,000 Pesos, and, he added, it could have been 2,700,000; he could not be quite certain. But the cheque was for more than 2,000,000 pesos. He also had a cheque for $2,000 U.S. He added that the Mexican Police took his money, and it was handed to Licenseado Torraza, the Solicitor General of Quintana Roo.

He was in Police custody in the Mexican territory for seven days. Then he was brought to the Belizean frontier by the Mexican Police. He was handed over to the Belizean Police and in Corozal he signed a statement to the Police of Belize. He said he was forced to sign the statement.

Next he said he attended an Identification Parade, but the persons were called to identify him before the parade was held. His evidence was that they noticed the gold in his teeth because they had identified him before the parade was held.

The Court learned from the Appellant that a lawyer prepared his appeal, but the lawyer had not told him what were the grounds.

It was the posture of the Appellant that the attitude of the Bank Officials who accused him of stealing, ought to be investigated. The Appellant appeared to be suggesting that he had come into possession of the money found with him, through legitimate business transactions and his connection with Mexican Banks were generally well known; and he had told this to the Police. He went on to suggest that Joaquin Mena, of Santa Elena, a Police Officer, was the first owner of the furniture factory. The Appellant had not seen Mena since police found the money, and he believed Mena was trying to get him into trouble, as he had had difficulty with him previously an he had not seen Joaquin Mena since Police found the money. The Appellant also referred to Inspector Pook stealing his money.

Replying for the Prosecution the learned Director of Public Prosecutions submitted with regard to Ground I of the Grounds of Appeal, the trial judge had given full and adequate directions on the standard of proof, and the Court was referred to the relevant pages and passages of the record.

As for Ground 2, the learned trial judge had put the defence fully to the jury. As the defence consisted merely of a dock statement, it would have been sufficient if the trial judge had merely reminded the jury of the statement. But the trial judge went further and dealt in detail with the statement.

Referring to Ground 3, the learned Director of Public Prosecutions adverted to Section 134(1) of the Indictable Procedure Ordinance, Chapter 93 of the Laws, which provides for the return of a verdict of assault with intent to rob.

Having heard the learned Director of Public Prosecutions, and seen the record of the proceedings, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. We are of the opinion that the Appellant had the benefit of a full and impartial summing up, with which we find no fault.

As for his criticism of the conduct of the Identification Parade this matter was raised indirectly at his trial through the cross-examination of a Prosecution witness, but no evidence was called by the defence to substantiate the allegations made.

The submissions therefore fail and for these reasons the Appeal is dismissed.

----------OO----------