Issue one: Whether the court has jurisdiction to try Scampie for the offences involving Magneto?
The general principle is that a State only has jurisdiction to try offences that are committed within its borders. However, legislation has acted to artificially extend a country’s physical boundaries for the purpose of jurisdiction. In Cox v. Army Council [1963] AC 48, HL, the words “or which, if committed in England, would be punishable by that law” found in section 70 of the Army Act, 1955 was given effect to convict a British Soldier for driving without due care and attention contrary to the English Road Traffic Act. This was so even though the incident itself had occurred in Germany. As Viscount Simonds stated, the “character of universality” …show more content…
The common law dictates that an arrest can be either with or without a warrant, and statute has codified and extended some of these common law powers. Section 3(4) of the Criminal Law Act of Trinidad and Tobago Chap 10:04 states “where a police officer with reasonable cause, suspects that an arrestable offence has been committed, he may arrest without warrant anyone whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.” A key element is that the officer must have reasonable cause for his belief. Section 3 (5) also empowers officers to arrest without warrant if they believe an arrestable offence “is about to be committed.” The Police Act also grants the power of arrest without warrant against any person resisting arrest or who commits aggravated …show more content…
However, according to Elias and Others v. Pasmore [1934] 2 KB 164, a person who has been arrested may be searched if it is believed that he has material evidence in his possession. Some Caribbean statutes have codified this. It therefore follows that since the search was only carried out after Smith informed PC Apprehen of the theft and identified Scampie as the perpetrator, the search was lawful. The offence had been recently committed, thus is was reasonable for PC Apprehen to assume that if guilty, Scampie would still have the wallet in his possession, just as the search
The general principle is that a State only has jurisdiction to try offences that are committed within its borders. However, legislation has acted to artificially extend a country’s physical boundaries for the purpose of jurisdiction. In Cox v. Army Council [1963] AC 48, HL, the words “or which, if committed in England, would be punishable by that law” found in section 70 of the Army Act, 1955 was given effect to convict a British Soldier for driving without due care and attention contrary to the English Road Traffic Act. This was so even though the incident itself had occurred in Germany. As Viscount Simonds stated, the “character of universality” …show more content…
The common law dictates that an arrest can be either with or without a warrant, and statute has codified and extended some of these common law powers. Section 3(4) of the Criminal Law Act of Trinidad and Tobago Chap 10:04 states “where a police officer with reasonable cause, suspects that an arrestable offence has been committed, he may arrest without warrant anyone whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.” A key element is that the officer must have reasonable cause for his belief. Section 3 (5) also empowers officers to arrest without warrant if they believe an arrestable offence “is about to be committed.” The Police Act also grants the power of arrest without warrant against any person resisting arrest or who commits aggravated …show more content…
However, according to Elias and Others v. Pasmore [1934] 2 KB 164, a person who has been arrested may be searched if it is believed that he has material evidence in his possession. Some Caribbean statutes have codified this. It therefore follows that since the search was only carried out after Smith informed PC Apprehen of the theft and identified Scampie as the perpetrator, the search was lawful. The offence had been recently committed, thus is was reasonable for PC Apprehen to assume that if guilty, Scampie would still have the wallet in his possession, just as the search