Dennis Ackie Appellant v The Queen Respondent [ECSC]

JurisdictionCaribbean States
CourtEastern Caribbean Supreme Court
JudgeLEWIS, C.J., Chief Justice
Judgment Date08 Feb 1972
Neutral Citation[1972] ECSC J0208-1
Docket NumberCriminal Appeal No. 2 of 1971
[1972] ECSC J0208-1



The Honourable The Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice Cecil Lewis

The Honourable Mr. Justice St. Bernard

Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1971

Dennis Ackie
The Queen

B.K. Alleyne for Appellant

A.N.J. Matthew and I. Shillingford for the Crown

The judgment of the Court was delivered by –

The appellant was convicted on the 29th September 1971, of the offence of receiving stolen goods and was sentenced to three years imprisonment with hard labour. He was granted leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence.


The witness Eaton Bellot lived in a dwelling house at Citronier, some of the windows of which consisted of louvres. He left his home on the morning of the 25th August 1971, having closed it up and locked his door. He said that he left some money, $686.00,in a drawer, a shot gun leaning on the wardrobe and a lady's chain and locket on the dresser, all these in one of his bedrooms. On his return home some time later that day he unlocked his door and went in. He found both his bedroom doors open, and, on looking into one bedroom, he saw everything topsy-turvy, clothing, mattress and bedspread on the floor. Drawers were opened. On checking the house he found that three louvres had been pulled out of a window and there were muddy prints on the window ledge. On checking his belongings he observed that the money which he had leftin the drawer was missing and the gun was missing. Later in the day-he also observed that the lady's gold chain and locked was missing. He made some inquiries from some boys in the road nearby, received information, went to Shillingford's Garage, and there he saw the appellant who is a driver; and he said that when the appellant saw him coming towards him, he stepped back three times. He made a report to the police who came and asked the appellant to accompany them to the Police Station. At the Police Station the appellant emptied his pockets and brought out a quantity of money, about $40.00, which he said was the balance of $80.00 with which he had left home that morning and a packet of cigarettes. The police got a search warrant and returned to the Police Station and there they searched the appellant, and when the packet of cigarettes was taken out of the appellant's pocket, out dropped a chain which the man Bellot identified as his chain and locket. The appellant's home was searched later that day and under the bed the missing gun was discovered. A pistol was also found there; but that was not claimed by the prosecutor Bellot. In the course of cross-examination the witness Bellot said that his first reaction on finding his house broken was to send in search of a woman named Cuffy with whom he had been living and who he thought might have removed the things from his house as a joke.


The woman Cuffy gave evidence. She said she had not been to the house that day—she had been spending the week-end with her mother but that later, around 5 p.m. she did go to the house—this was after the place had been discovered broken open and she saw that the place was in a mess, as she called it. She was asked by counsel for the appellant whether she had not asked the appellant to take her to Bellot's house on 25th August to get the gun because she was afraid of Bellot, and she said no. She denied that she had taken away the gun from Bellot's home; she denied that she had removed the chain and given it to appellant as was suggested to her. Certain other allegations to which I will refer when I recount the evidence of the appellant, were also denied by her.


A young boy Dave Winston, aged nine years, said in evidence for the prosecution that on the morning in question he had met the accusel. He saw the accused park his car on the side of the road near to Bellot's house and go into Ballot's yard, and he didn't see him again. He said that he knew Beilot well. He also knew Cuffy but he did not see her that morning. It was suggested to him that his mother had been paid $12.00 to give evidence. He said he knew nothing about that and no subsequent evidence on that score was given in the case.


Then there was the evidence of Simon Darroux which went towards the identification of the gun which was found in the appelant's house as being a...

To continue reading

Request your trial