Knight v Att Gen

The appellant was charged in the Summary Court with, inter alia, being concerned in the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Law (2000 Revision), s.3(1).

The appellant was charged, inter alia, with the offence of being concerned in the importation of a controlled drug (cocaine), contrary to s.3(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Law (2000 Revision). He was advised that he was not entitled to a jury trial in respect of this offence, was tried summarily, convicted as charged and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment.

On appeal, he submitted that, since the offence of being concerned in the importation of a controlled drug was a Category B offence under s.5(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (2005 Revision), it was triable either upon indictment or summarily, with the consent of the prosecution and the accused.

The Grand Court (Levers, J.) allowed his appeal and held that the offence was an offence of . . . importing, within the meaning of s.60(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Law (2000 Revision), and was therefore a Category B offence. The appellant should, therefore, have been put to his election in respect of trial by jury and, since he had not been, the conviction should be quashed. The proceedings in the Grand Court are noted at 2006 CILR N [2].

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal (Zacca, P., Taylor and Mottley, JJ.A.) reversed the Grand Court decision and held that the offence of being concerned in the importation of a controlled drug was not an offence of . . . importing within the meaning of s.60(1). Importing and being concerned in . . . [the importation of a controlled drug] were listed separately in s.3(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Law (2000 Revision) and

being concerned in . . . was omitted from the list of Category B offences in s.60(1). It was therefore a Category C offence, triable summarily only and the appellant was not, therefore, entitled to elect trial by jury. The proceedings in the Court of Appeal are noted at 2006 CILR N [20].

On further appeal, the appellant submitted that (a) the Court of Appeal had erred in its decision that the offence of being concerned in the importation of a controlled drug was a Category C, rather than a Category B, offence and this decision should therefore be reversed and the conviction quashed, as he had not been given the option to have the charge heard by a jury; and (b) the offence was a Category B offence because it was not distinct from the other acts (such as attempting and assisting) criminalized by s.3(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Law (2000 Revision) and therefore there was no basis for applying the expressio unius est exclusio alterius doctrine to a reading of s.60(1) of that same Law, since the word attempting in s.60(1) should be read as including the words being concerned in . . .

The Crown submitted in reply that (a) the Court of Appeal had been correct to hold that the offence of being concerned in the importation of a controlled drug was a Category C offence; it fell outside the scope of s.60(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Law (2000 Revision) since it was distinct from those others (such as attempting and assisting) criminalized in s.3(1) of that Law and listed in s.60(1), and the inclusion of only attempting in that section lead to the exclusion of being concerned in . . ., by virtue of the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius; the offence was therefore triable summarily only, and the magistrate was correct not to give the appellant the option to have the charge heard by a jury; and (b) there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant had received anything but a fair trial in the Summary Court and no injustice had been perpetrated by not affording him a trial on indictment.