Sheena Minzett v R - Judgment

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS Holden at George Town, Grand Cayman S.C.A. No. 14 of 2008 Jarrett Allen Daniels v Regina Appearances For the Applicant/Appellant: Mr. Howard Hamilton Q.C., instructed by Ms. Margetta Facey-Clarke of Facey-Clarke & Associates For the Crown/Respondent: Ms. Tanya Lobban of the Government Legal Department Before: Hon. Justice Henderson Heard: 15 May 2009 JUDGMENT Introduction Jarrett Daniels appealed from his conviction in the Summary Court for being concerned in the importation of ganja with intent to supply. The appeal was advanced on a single ground: that his statement to the police should have been excluded because he had not first been warned of his right to silence. 【1-851f1c】 Background Facts On the evening of 7 February 2007, police officers apprehended a group of individuals attempting to import a boatload of ganja into the Cayman Islands from Jamaica. Mr. Daniels was not among those arrested at that time. 【1-851f1c】 Approximately one week later, Police Constable Campbell and Detective Foster attended at the Mosquito Research Unit in Grand Cayman looking for Mr. Daniels. When they met him, they identified themselves as police officers. Constable Campbell informed him that he was investigating: "a quantity of vegetable matter resembling ganja recovered at North Side" and that he believed Mr. Daniels could assist with the investigation. 【1-851f1c】 Campbell asked Mr. Daniels why he had been at Morgan’s Harbour, the intended unloading point for the ganja shipment, on 7 February 2007. Mr. Daniels replied: "somebody said I was there?" He denied being present and stated: That he had left work at 4:00 p.m.; Gone home; Only left once briefly to visit a store; and Then immediately returned home. 【1-851f1c】 Campbell next asked him whether he was familiar with the vessel Mount Zion , which had been used to transport the ganja. Mr. Daniels said he was not. Campbell then asked if he knew Sheena Minzett , who had been arrested in connection with the boat. Mr. Daniels said that he knew her from school days in West Bay. 【1-851f1c】 Campbell then asked whether he would be willing to give a witness statement and Mr. Daniels agreed. 【1-851f1c】 Events at the Police Station The officers accompanied Mr. Daniels to George Town Police Station. Constable Campbell began preparing a witness statement. After recording preliminary personal information, he heard Mr. Daniels say: "I went down there at Morgan's Harbour and speak to people. If my name came up, I don't know what they said about me. But I admit that I am involved. It doesn't make sense giving you gentlemen the run-around. If it goes into black and white and I sign, I can't change after. So I am not giving the statement. I think at this time, is it possible for me to speak with a lawyer?" 【1-851f1c】 At that point Campbell interrupted him, arrested him for importation of ganja and possession of ganja with intent to supply, and administered the standard caution concerning the right to silence. Following the caution, Mr. Daniels made no response. He was permitted to telephone his wife and later advised the police that she was arranging legal representation for him. 【1-851f1c】 Evidence on the Voir Dire Under cross-examination, Constable Campbell accepted that when he first approached Mr. Daniels he believed that he had been present at Morgan’s Harbour on the night the drugs were expected to arrive. However, he did not then regard him as a suspect. The issue of whether Campbell already suspected criminal involvement before speaking with Daniels was examined in detail. 【1-851f1c】 Detective Foster similarly stated that he believed Daniels had been seen speaking with persons involved in the operation. However, Foster's position was that the information available to him at that stage did not provide grounds to suspect criminal complicity because Daniels may have had any number of innocent reasons for being there. 【1-851f1c】 The Judges’ Rules The Court reviewed the Judges’ Rules 1964, which remain in effect in the Cayman Islands. The Rules provide, among other things, that: Police officers may question any person from whom useful information may be obtained while they are still merely investigating an offence; and Once there is evidence which affords reasonable grounds for suspecting that a particular person has committed an offence, that person should be cautioned before further questioning takes place. 【1-851f1c】 The standard caution required by Rule II is: "You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so but what you say may be put into writing and given in evidence." 【1-851f1c】 Applicable Test The Court emphasized that the question is largely an objective one. The relevant inquiry is not whether the officer personally regarded the individual as a suspect, but whether the evidence known to the officer at the time objectively amounted to reasonable grounds for suspicion. 【1-851f1c】 The Court referred to the distinction explained by Lord Devlin in: Shaaban Bin Hussien v Chong Fook Kam [1969] 3 All E.R. 1626, between suspicion and proof: "Suspicion in its ordinary meaning is a state of conjecture or surmise where proof is lacking." 【1-851f1c】 Analysis The Court found that, before the crucial statement was made, the police knew only that: Mr. Daniels had allegedly been present at the dock; He appeared to know one person involved in the operation; and He may have been in the vicinity of the planned unloading point. 【1-851f1c】 That information was insufficient to provide reasonable grounds for suspecting him of committing a criminal offence. Accordingly, neither officer was required at that stage to administer a caution. 【1-851f1c】 The position changed only when Mr. Daniels voluntarily stated: "I admit that I am involved." At that point the officers immediately stopped the witness-statement process, arrested him and administered the caution. 【1-851f1c】 The Court held that there was therefore no breach of the Judges’ Rules. The statement was volunteered and entirely spontaneous. It had not been obtained: Through oppression; Through inducement; Through any promise of advantage; or In breach of the Rules concerning cautions. 【1-851f1c】 Conclusion The learned Magistrate correctly admitted the statement into evidence. The statement was voluntary and the circumstances did not require an earlier caution. Accordingly, the appeal against conviction failed. 【1-851f1c】 Disposition The appeal against conviction is dismissed. 【1-851f1c】 Henderson J Judge of the Grand Court 29 June 2009; Drug Offences; Sentencing; Appeals