The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal yesterday quashed the conviction of a man who was previously fined $10,000 after he pleaded guilty to marijuana possession with the intent to supply.

In September 2019, police, armed with a search warrant, searched the residence of Charles Williams.

During their investigation, officers found one silver foil paper wrapping containing a grassy-like substance suspected to be marijuana. A further search led to the discovery of a clear plastic bag containing 20 more foil paper wrappings on a nearby table. Charles was subsequently arrested and taken to a police station. When he was interviewed under caution there, he admitted having the single foil wrapping, but denied knowledge of the larger quantity of drugs.

The next day, Williams was formally charged with possession of marijuana with the intent to supply and one count of simple possession. He pleaded guilty to both offences and asked the magistrate to be “as lenient as possible” as he “smoked Indian hemp on a daily basis”, but did not sell the drug.

According to court documents, “no further inquiry was made of the intended appellant” with regards to how his statement could have impacted his guilty plea with respect to the larger charge.

Instead, the magistrate accepted both of Williams’ guilty pleas and proceeded to convict and sentence him. Williams was subsequently fined $10,000 or two years imprisonment for dangerous drug possession with intent to supply and $500 or one year on remand for simple possession.

Seven months following his sentence, Williams appealed his conviction and yesterday, Justices Maureen Crane-Scott, Roy Jones and Carolita Bethell acceded to his application for an extension of time and quashed his conviction for the first charge.

In their judgement, delivered by Justice Crane-Scott, the panel noted that section 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code “did not operate to bar an appeal against conviction” where a guilty plea was equivocal.

“On the face of the record there was a material irregularity affecting the merits of the case in that the intended appellant’s statement to the magistrate, following the outline of facts by the prosecutor, cast considerable doubt on his guilty plea,” she said.

Justice Crane-Scott also said the magistrate “would have known” that Charles initially denied having the larger quantity of drugs as he stated the same in his record of interview that was outlined in the prosecution’s facts.

She said despite the fact that Charles pleaded guilty to both counts, the prosecution’s facts “accurately recorded his denial to police of his guilt on the first count”.

“His subsequent statement to the magistrate that he did not sell drugs ought to have put the magistrate on inquiry,” she stated. “While consistent with what he told police before he was charged, what he said to the magistrate in his address following the outline of facts cast considerable doubt on what may, at the start of the proceedings, have seemed to be an unequivocal plea of guilt on count one.

“It was for all the foregoing reasons that we acceded to the application for an extension of time within which to appeal. In accordance with our powers under section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, Chapter 52, we allowed the appeal and quashed the appellant’s conviction on count one for possession of dangerous drugs with intent to supply.”