Rohan Rambarran v The Queen

• Jurisdiction: Caribbean States
• Judge: Mr Justice Saunders,Wit,Rajnauth-Lee,Barrow,Jamadar,Mr Justice D Barrow
• Judgment Date: 20 July 2020
• Court: Caribbean Court of Justice (Appellate Jurisdiction)
• Docket Number: CCJ Application No. BBCR2019 of 003 CCJ Application No. BBCR2019 of 004 Barbados Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2009
• Date: 20 July 2020

IN THE CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

Appellate Jurisdiction

Before

the Honourables: Mr Justice A Saunders, PCCJ

Mr Justice J Wit, JCCJ

Mme Justice M Rajnauth-Lee, JCCJ

Mr Justice D Barrow, JCCJ

Mr Justice P Jamadar, JCCJ

CCJ Application No. BBCR2019 of 003

BB Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2009

CCJ Application No. BBCR2019 of 004

Barbados Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2009

Between

Rohan Rambarran

Applicant

and

The Queen

Respondent

Between

Gavin Wayne Green

Applicant

and

The Queen

Respondent

Appearances

Sir Richard Cheltenham QC and Ms Shelly-Ann Seecharan for the Applicant (BBCR2019/003)

Mr Marlon Gordon for the Applicant (BBCR2019/004)

Ms Krystal Delaney, Mr Neville Watson and Mr Rudolph Burnett for the Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION of The Honourable Mr Justice Saunders , President and the Honourable Justices Wit, Rajnauth-Lee, Barrow and Jamadar

Delivered by The Honourable Mr Justice D Barrow on the 20th day of July 2020

1 At the end of the hearing on 30 June 2020 of the two applications for special leave to appeal against conviction, the Court refused the applications of both Rohan Rambarran and Gavin Green and promised to give brief reasons.

2 Both men were convicted, along with four others, of importation, possession and trafficking of large amounts of cannabis and cocaine. The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals against conviction but reduced their sentences and they were both released.

3 Rambarran sought to appeal on grounds that all related to the evidence. Principally, he wished to argue that the trial judge should have upheld his submission of no case to answer and that the evidence as to the identification of the drugs was totally discredited and otherwise unreliable. Green wished to appeal against the directions the trial judge gave in relation to corroboration and the right against self-incrimination.

4 The Court of Appeal 1 dealt adequately with all the issues that the applicant Rambarran wished to argue on a further appeal and their judgment leaves this Court satisfied that there is no potential miscarriage of justice or arguable error of law. In essence, in the case of Rambarran, the Court of Appeal found that there was sufficient and reliable evidence on which a jury could properly convict. In relation to Green, this Court found there was no substance to his contention (as it evolved) that the trial judge should have given a stronger direction on how to treat the sworn testimony of a co-accused or on the alleged mis-treatment of Green by the police.

5 It was clear, therefore, from the written and oral submissions and the papers on the court file that these applications satisfied none of the requirements to qualify for the grant of special leave that this Court laid down in Doyle v The Queen 2 and has consistently applied in decisions that followed. 3 As stated in Doyle 4

...