COCAINE CERTIFICATES Few cases affected; two acquittals confirmed
About the article
This is a digitised version of an article from The Cayman Compass's print archive. Occasionally, the digitisation process introduces transcription errors, or other problems.
See the article in its original context from April 2002.
Brought to you by
The man whose case took the matter to London will have to resume his appeal before Cayman's Court of Appeal. Solicitor General Sam Bulgin confirmed these facts while responding to questions from the Compass last week about the effect of the Privy Council judgment.
The judgment was in a case appealed by Cayman's Attorney General after the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Carlyle Rudyard Roberts. Roberts had been sentenced to 11 years imprisonment after he was found guilty in Summary Court of possession of cocaine with intent to supply.
His conviction was upheld in Grand Court. But the Court of Appeal agreed with two arguments put forward on Roberts' behalf. First, that the certificate of analysis stated that the substance was cocaine hydrochloride, but there was no evidence that this substance was a controlled drug as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Law. Second, that Roberts did not receive a copy of the certificate before his trial, not did he receive a notice that the Crown intended to use the certificate as evidence.
In essence, the Privy Council ruled that, since all forms of cocaine are controlled substances, it was not necessary for the certificate to state that it was a controlled drug. [Recent certificates have referred to "cocaine hydrochloride, being a salt of cocaine".]
The Privy Council also ruled that, even if the defendant did not receive a copy of the certificate was before the trial, the proper time to object was during the trial. An unrepresented defendant might not know the requirement of the law, but Roberts did have an attorney. The attorney did not object to the certificate.
The two certificate-related issues, therefore, were What was the substance identified as? Was a copy of the certificate properly served on the defendant?
Shortly after the Court of Appeal gave its reasons for the Carlyle Roberts' decision, the Grand Court followed those reasons and overturned convictions of two persons who had pleaded not guilty.
In the successful appeal by Peter O'Neil Gooden, Defence Attorney John Furniss pointed out that no certificate of analysis of any kind was ever received by the defendant. Gooden had been convicted of being concerned in the importation of cocaine by another person. Instead, he was given a "certificate of destruction" of the cocaine. Gooden had been sentenced to eight years imprisonment and the court had ordered $100,000 of his assets to be confiscated.
The other successful appellant was Christopher Robinson. Defence Attorney Lawrence Aiolfi pointed to the Court of Appeal's ruling that identifying a substance as cocaine hydrochloride was insufficient. Robinson had been sentenced to six years for possession with intent to supply.
Mr. Bulgin told the Compass that the Legal Department will not "revisit" either of these cases, so the men's acquittals will stand. In any event, permission would be needed to appeal against the two quashed convictions. Continued on page 2 from page 1 tions, he added.
In the case of Carlyle Roberts, Mr. Bulgin explained that the Legal Department is waiting for a formal order from the Registrar of the Privy Council returning the matter to the Court of Appeal here.
It should then be relisted so that Roberts' attorney can argue the remaining grounds of his appeal. There is no set time limit, Mr. Bulgin said, although what usually happens is that the matter should go ahead as soon as possible.
There was one case in which a man appealed his Summary Court conviction, with one ground being the supposedlyfaulty certificate. That appeal was adjourned and he was given bail until the outcome of the Privy Council hearing.
[It is not clear how many defendants are in this category, but it is not more than a few.]
A number of defendants who pleaded guilty to cocaine offences wanted to appeal after the Roberts' decision in the Court of Appeal. They were told early on that 1) they had accepted that the substance in their case was a controlled substance; 2) if they changed their plea to not guilty, there would be a trial and the Crown could bring evidence to show that cocaine hydrochloride is a salt of cocaine and therefore a controlled substance.
