Bhola v State of Trinidad and Tobago
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood |
| Judgment Date | 08 March 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] UKPC 9 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No 26 of 2005 |
| Date | 08 March 2006 |
[2006] UKPC 9
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Lord Hutton
Lord Scott of Foscote
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Privy Council
[Delivered by Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]
On 29 October 2001 the appellant, Vijai Bhola, was convicted before Baird J and a jury of demanding money with menaces on 20 June 1995 for which he was sentenced to six years imprisonment with hard labour. On 18 December 2002 the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago (Hamel-Smith, Lucky and Kangaloo JJA) dismissed his appeal against conviction. Because the Court of Appeal made no direction under section 49(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, the appellant's time in custody (some thirteen and a half months) between conviction and appeal did not count towards his sentence. Special leave to appeal against conviction was given by the Board on 19 July 2004.
At the close of the hearing before the Board on 31 January 2006 their Lordships announced their decisions to dismiss the appellant's appeal against conviction but to grant him special leave to appeal against the failure to make a section 49(1) direction and to allow that appeal and direct that the time between the appellant's conviction and the determination of his appeal should count as part of his term of imprisonment which should be deemed to run as from the date of his conviction on 29 October 2001. Accordingly the appellant was to be released immediately. The Board now gives its reasons for these decisions.
At the time of the alleged offence the appellant was a serving police officer of twenty years' standing. He was tried together with two others, Leon Wiggins (also an experienced serving police officer) and Vishnu Hardial (Hardial) (a man with previous convictions for possessing a firearm and ammunition and larceny for which he had served a term of seven years imprisonment). All three were convicted and sentenced to six years'; imprisonment with hard labour. Wiggins and the appellant (but not Hardial) appealed against their conviction to the Court of Appeal, unsuccessfully in each case. The appellant alone sought further leave to appeal to the Board.
The essential case for the prosecution was that the appellant, Wiggins, Hardial and a fourth man, Rajendra Singh (Rajendra) – who for some reason was not prosecuted – acted together in a joint enterprise to extract money from one Chaitlal Singh (Chaitlal) by planting what purported to be a package of cocaine (in fact flour) in his car and then threatening to prosecute him for its possession unless he paid them a substantial sum of money not to do so.
Chaitlal was a store manager apparently of some means. On the morning of 20 June 1995 he was lured to a shopping complex where he parked his car and went inside. As he returned to his car he saw a stranger (Hardial) getting into the front passenger seat and he was then approached by the appellant in police uniform. The appellant told Chaitlal that he had received information from the police station that Chaitlal's car contained arms and ammunition and that he had been ordered to search it. On the back seat was a brown bag containing small sealed packages. Having opened one and tasted its contents the appellant said "it's good stuff, it is real coke" and told Chaitlal that he had made "a big bust" and would get "a great promotion". Chaitlal protested that the bag was not his but belonged to the man in the front seat. Hardial, however, denied this and the appellant said that Chaitlal was "trying something". He then instructed Chaitlal to drive them to the police station.
On the way there they saw beside the road another police officer, Wiggins, whom Chaitlal had known for some time. The appellant told Chaitlal to stop the car and then pointed out the brown bag to Wiggins and repeated that it was a big bust and would be a big promotion for him. Wiggins then got into the car and purported to intercede on Chaitlal's behalf, telling the appellant that he knew Chaitlal and that he did not deal in drugs. On reaching the police station Wiggins told Chaitlal to drive on and to stop further along the road. He then asked Chaitlal how much money he could produce to persuade the appellant to destroy the drugs and not prosecute him. The appellant wanted $100,000 but Chaitlal said that he didn't have that sort of money although he would try and borrow some. The appellant said that he wanted the money right away and again Wiggins purported to come to Chaitlal's aid by saying that he could be trusted. Chaitlal then drove the appellant back to the police station where he dropped him off before driving on with Wiggins and Hardial to try to borrow some money from his brother-in-law. Having been unsuccessful in this, Chaitlal was told to drive to a further place where they were joined by the appellant in a police vehicle. The appellant then took Chaitlal's driving permit to ensure that he got his money (although in fact he returned it the following day) after which Wiggins directed Chaitlal to drive on to another place where they were met by Rajendra in another vehicle into which the brown bag was then transferred. After this Wiggins told Chaitlal that he should consider him a good friend because of the favour he was doing him but to make sure he got the money or it would be impossible to help him further. Rajendra later collected $35,000 from Chaitlal ($30,000 of which Chaitlal had borrowed from four different people).
Chaitlal reported these events to Police Sergeant (later Assistant Superintendent) Boyd on 25 June 1995.
At interview on 6 October 1995 the appellant denied knowing anything about the matter at all. In evidence at trial he said that on 20 June 1995 he was on foot patrol sheltering from the rain in the shopping complex when he observed a motor car parked there with a man in the front seat. He then saw another man walking towards the car whom he asked for a lift to the police station. The man (Chaitlal) agreed, saying he always liked to help the police. The appellant knew neither Chaitlal nor the man in the passenger seat (he denied this was Hardial). On the way to the police station Chaitlal saw Wiggins, who he said was his "good partner", and stopped. Wiggins was off duty at the time and going to a bar so Chaitlal offered him a lift too. The appellant was dropped off at the police station and did not see Chaitlal again. There was no search of Chaitlal's car, nothing said about arms and ammunition, no bag in the car, nothing said about drugs or about a promotion, no demand for money or anything of the kind. He accepted in cross-examination that except for the fact that it was raining he had no other reason to return to the police station and that he was only halfway through his four hour beat when he asked Chaitlal for a lift. He did not know Chaitlal and could think of no reason why he should invent this allegation against him. No evidence was adduced as to the appellant's character although in fact he was a man of entirely good character with an unblemished disciplinary record as a police officer.
Wiggins' evidence confirmed that on the morning in question a car stopped on the road beside him and he recognised the driver, Chaitlal, and his fellow officer, the appellant. The appellant told him that he had "just made a big bust" and when he asked the appellant what it was the appellant replied "coke". Wiggins then got into the car and as it drove on he heard Chaitlal tell the appellant that he would pay anything to get out of this fix. Wiggins said he wanted no part of the conversation and shortly afterwards he himself left the car, telling Chaitlal that he hoped he would not get himself involved in any more trouble. Under cross-examination Wiggins agreed that he had witnessed Chaitlal offering a bribe to a police officer but said that it was for the appellant to report that offence, not him. Wiggins, unlike the appellant, did give evidence of his own good character and stated that no disciplinary complaint had been made against him during his 24 years of police service. He also called a retired police inspector as a character witness on his behalf.
Hardial had made a confession statement on 13 September 1995. In evidence, however, he said that this statement had been beaten out of him and was untrue. He said that he knew Chaitlal and on the morning in question had asked him for a lift. He denied, however, being in the car when the appellant was alleged to have searched it or, indeed, during any of the subsequent events which Chaitlal described. Having regard to his challenge to his confession statement the prosecution was allowed to put Hardial's bad character in evidence.
The appellant's principal ground of appeal both before the Court of Appeal (and again before the Board) was that his counsel had failed to adduce evidence of his good character so that he never obtained from the judge's summing up the benefit of the good character direction both as to credibility and propensity to which he would otherwise have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mark France and Rupert Vassell v The Queen
...fatal to the fairness of the trial or to the safety of a conviction — Jagdeo Singh… [2006] 1 WLR 146, para 25 and Bhola v The State [2006] 4 LRC 268, paras 14–17. As Lord Bingham of Cornhill said at para 25 in Jagdeo Singh's case, 'Much may turn on the nature of and issues in a case, and ......
-
Peter Stewart v The Queen
...good character. 15 Again this is an area of the law that I discussed in some detail in giving the Board's judgment in Bhola v The State [2006] UKPC 9 and again the Board think it unnecessary to rehearse the case law afresh here. The one further general point that is perhaps worth making on......
-
Vasyli v R; R v Vasyli
...18 of 2011 mentioned Balson v. The State [2005] UKPC 6 considered Barrow v. The State [1998] UKPC 16 mentioned Bhola v. The State [2006] UKPC 9 mentioned Campbell v. The Queen [2010] UKPC 26 mentioned Dennis Reid v. The Queen [1980] A.C. 343 applied Director of Public Prosecutions v. Sele......
-
Josue Celestin v The Attorney General
...still have convicted. [See for example: Balson v. The State [2005] UKPC 2; Uriah Brown v. The Queen [2005] UKPC 18; Bhola v. The State [2006] UKPC 9; Gilbert v. The Queen; Peter Stewart v. The Queen [2011] UKPC 11; France and Vassell v. The Queen [2012] UKPC 28; R v. Nigel Hunter [201......