Court of Appeal sides with magistrate who dismissed drug charges against Jamaican

The Court of Appeal has backed Chief Magistrate Ian Weekes’ decision to drop drug charges against a marine engineer from Jamaica.

In dismissing an appeal to Weekes’ ruling, brought by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the panel of judges also ordered that costs be paid to the former drug accused, Ralph Joseph James.

The 61-year-old was charged with possession, trafficking and intent to supply 138.4 kilogrammes of cannabis on November 7, 2020, after being arrested at sea. He was held 34 miles off Barbados, which is within the limits of Barbados’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) established by the Marine Boundaries and Jurisdiction Act.

James spent 28 days on remand before returning before Chief Magistrate Weekes in mid-December 2020 when the charges were dropped and he was handed over to immigration officials, after his lawyer Ryan Moseley successfully argued that Barbadian authorities had no jurisdiction to charge him given that his arrest was outside the country’s territorial limit. The Barbados Territorial Waters Act sets that limit at 12 nautical miles from the baseline of the shore.

Moseley argued then that the charges against his client had specifically referred to the Marine Boundaries and Jurisdiction Act. He said in his view that was “an admission” that his client was outside Barbados’ territorial waters and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the District ‘A’ Magistrates’ Court.

The prosecution, which was represented by Crown Counsel Romario Straker, conceded that authorities acted incorrectly, resulting in the charges being dismissed. However, the Crown later filed an appeal.

Today, the Appeal Court judges – Chief Justice Sir Patterson Cheltenham and Justices Rajendra Narine and Francis Belle – agreed with Magistrate Weekes’ decision to dismiss the charges.

After hearing submissions from Moseley and attorney-at-law Gregory Nicholls who represented James in the appeal, the panel handed down their decision which was delivered by Justice Narine.

The judge stated that the appellants were unable to show that the magistrate committed any error in accepting their concessions that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the charges.

“There is no basis, in our view, on which we can interfere with the decision made by the magistrate based on a concession made by the appellant on an agreed set of facts which were presented to the magistrate,” Justice Narine said.

He noted that the Crown had changed its mind with respect to “its decision or its concession” before Magistrate Weekes and had then appealed his order.

“Before this court, the [appellant] had some difficulty in persuading us that the magistrate had jurisdiction to hear the charges. Having regards to the uncontroverted facts as agreed before the magistrate, and having considered the submissions of attorneys on both sides, we concluded that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear these charges.

“Accordingly, we order that the appeal be dismissed and the orders of the magistrate are affirmed,” the judge added.