C. A. Osborne

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim arising from the loss of part of a shipment of watches seized by Bahamian authorities after customs documentation was incorrectly completed.

The court held that the respondent carrier had contracted not only to provide customs clearance services but also to deliver the shipment with customs clearance to the consignee's business address.

The consignee's conduct in attempting to obtain customs clearance did not break the chain of responsibility because, for that purpose, it acted as the carrier's agent.

The appeal was allowed and judgment was directed for the full claim together with pre-judgment interest and costs.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for declaratory and related relief arising from the respondent bank's freezing of her account and withdrawal of funds to cover an overdraft in a joint account held with her mother.

She argued that the applications judge failed to address non est factum and erred in not finding the bank negligent.

The court held that non est factum was not properly raised below and that the evidence did not obligate the applications judge to address it on his own motion.

The court further held that the bank was not negligent and that the appellant remained bound by her agreement to indemnify the bank for the overdraft.

The appeal was dismissed with fixed costs.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and related offences following a jury trial, and sought leave to appeal sentence.

The court accepted that the line-up procedure was flawed and that the trial judge omitted the second step of the W.D. instruction, but held the identification evidence was collateral and the appellant suffered no prejudice given the overwhelming hot-pursuit evidence.

The allegation of bias or improper judicial interference was rejected.

The court found the 15-year sentence offended the parity principle and reduced it to eight years concurrent on the robbery counts plus one year consecutive for the weapons conviction.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual touching on five grounds, including unreasonable verdict, improper reliance on demeanour, reversal of the burden of proof through motive-to-fabricate reasoning, improper use of prior consistent statements, and refusal of a further sentencing adjournment.

The court held that the trial judge was alive to inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, properly assessed them, and did not improperly rely on demeanour or prior statements.

It further found no reversal of the burden of proof and no basis to interfere with the refusal of an additional adjournment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed convictions for four sexual offences against his step-daughter and sought leave to appeal a five-year sentence.

He argued that the trial judge improperly assessed the complainant’s credibility and reliability on demeanour alone and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The court held that, reading the reasons as a whole, the trial judge was alive to reliability concerns, inconsistencies, reluctance, and delayed disclosure, and was entitled to accept the complainant’s evidence.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, leave to appeal sentence was granted, and the sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was fit.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her habeas corpus application with certiorari in aid following committal for trial on a charge of second degree murder.

She alleged denial of natural justice at the preliminary inquiry based on limits on cross-examination, continuation of the inquiry during her absence, inadequate assistance while unrepresented, and failure to conduct a fitness hearing during the inquiry.

The court held there was no denial of natural justice and no loss of jurisdiction, noting that irrelevant questioning was properly curtailed, witnesses heard in her absence were later recalled for cross-examination, and fitness had already been addressed.

The appeal was dismissed.