Lucky break for ‘cussing’ cop

A “cussbud” policeman,  who is also a law student,  was fortunate to be given a lucky break by the Court of Appeal and not have one of three convictions registered against him. Although the convictions were for minor offences, had it been kept on record, it could have created problems for him if and when he was being called to the Bar. The policeman was convicted of breach of a “No Parking” sign; failure to produce his certificate of insurance on request by the police; failure to comply with the lawful directions of a police officer and using obscene language in a public place. On each of the first three charges he was fined $150 or in default,  one month hard labour.

On the obscene language charge, he was found guilty but repremanded and discharged by the magistrate under section 71. Just in the event that the conviction of “failure to comply with a lawful police direction” could interfere with his future career, the Court of Appeal varied the sentence and also discharged him under section 71. His attorney Margaret Rose,  obdurately argued eight grounds of appeal before Justices of appeal Roger Hamel-Smith and Rolston Nelson on Tuesday, but failed to persuade the judges that Magistrate Michelle  Maharajh-Brown had failed in her duty to apply the appropriate burden of proof and standard of proof.

Special prosecutor Devan Rampersad, told the court that the magistrate had correctly dealt with the issues raised by Rose,  and went on to point out where and how she had dealt with them. He further noted that it was a simple traffic case without any complicated or complex issues of law, and that that point was also endorsed by Gilbert Peterson SC, when he represented the policeman at the trial. The court having dismissed the appeal and about to affirm the sentences, Rose asked their lordships for leave to address them on the issue of sentence.

It was at that point she explained that the policeman was also a law student and the convictions could negatively impact on his future career. The court was of the view that the convictions were merely traffic offences and would not in the future  hamper the profession he is now pursuing. The obscene language conviction, which was the only criminal offence and could have posed a problem at a later date, was already neutralised by the magistrate.