Ichelle Jeffords

197 Neal Pen Road Belize City Ph: (011) - (501) 651 - 9927

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Ref No:

01/IJW/LEG

FAO: Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin Chairman - JLSC Chief Magistrate Anne Marie Smith Madam Registrar Velda Flowers

31st May, 2012

FAO: Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin Re: Appeal against Biased Judgment

Dear Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin,

I Appeal to you in regards to the above-captioned matter.

My name is Ichelle Jeffords. I am a resident of 197 Neal Pen Rd. Belize City. I believe that I have been biased by the Family Court because the Magistrate Nicholas told me that nothing is going in my favor even though I believe they never conducted a proper investigation.

Up until my child, Leonard Castro, turned six years, I have been the sole provider in our home. His father, Nathan Castro, had been committed for failure of payment of child support sometime in 2010 and that was the only reason he paid the $980 he owed. Since then he neglected to contribute

(pay) any maintenance toward the care of his child. As recently as 2011, he took me to court.

Since then, I have been biased continually and wrongfully committed approximately two or three times, and I went the first few times and got sick. There has been adjournment after adjournment and Magistrate Nicholas said she will make her decision. As I said I have not been well and never been investigated either by the court or Human Services. The Magistrate is relying on witness statements and I was never there to cross-examine any witness because on a few occasions I was never been able to attend the session as I was not well. On one specific occasion I was there but went to the bathroom and when I returned was committed because someone told them I was not there. She also took a witness statement without me being present to question that witness.

Since 27 July, 2011 my son has been in the custody of his father. I could not make the 21st March session as I was not well and I dont know what the court is doing as I feel I am fighting a losing battle. I would like to rely on my constitutionally guaranteed right as provided by Section 20(1) of the Constitution of Belize to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for redress. If there is anything your office can do to assist me I would be more than grateful.
This is an appeal against the decision set out by Magistrate Margaret Nicholas of the Family Court on the 27th July, 2011.

The appellant appeals on the following grounds: That the learned Magistrate erred in fact; That the learned Magistrate erred in law; That the learned Magistrate failed to take into account all of the facts; That the learned Magistrate failed to grand consideration to all the evidence before them; That the learned Magistrate rendered an unsafe verdict; That the learned Magistrate rendered an unsafe sentence; That the manner in which the learned Magistrate handled the case was procedurally incorrect, irregular and disproportionate; and That the learned Magistrate failed to grant judicial redress of the conviction and the sentence.

Each ground would be considered in turn.

Background: This appeal is based on the fact that the appellant was unsuccessful at the hearing on the first instance level. That the decision of the learned Magistrate be re- examined. Nature of the application is to have the decision of the learned Magistrate quashed.

Chronology: 27th July, 2011 Interim Order for Custody issued;

The principals of the appeal:

It is perplexing that the learned Magistrate issued such a sentence and verdict without relying on evidence but hearsay evidence provided by the grandmother of my son. The learned Magistrate be guided to reflect equal rights pursuant to the Constitution. That the decision of the learned Magistrate constitutes a Conflict of Interest.

Arguments the ground:

Grounds Erred in fact the learned Magistrate failed to consider all the facts presented to them by the accused. The accused was not granted an opportunity to give her case. Had the accused been allowed to submit a statement then upon deliberation the learned Magistrate would have had evidence to refresh her memory; That the learned Magistrate only took the word of Juanita Castro; That Magistrate Nicholas relied upon hearsay evidence from Juanita Castro;

Ground The accused was not informed properly of the allegations against her until she arrived at the Family Court on the 27th July, 2011; There was no full and frank disclosure of the particulars of the case; NB: the accused was only fully informed of the charge being brought against her on the morning of 27th July, 2011, when she appeared before Magistrate Nicholas. There was insufficient time for the accused to respond in writing to ascertain further particulars of the nature of the offence and type of offence.

Ground The accused raised several facts which the learned Magistrate failed to give any credence to; It could be said that the hearing with the accused was only a formality to show natural justice; Hence the decision handed down by the learned Magistrate can be categorized as a fore drawn conclusion as a result the hearing was only a formality;

Ground Conviction is unsafe since the facts were misrepresented; Unsafe convictions are normally quashed; Unsafe convictions normally lead to wrongful sentences. Unsafe convictions are usually quashed and the accused vindicated. Alternatively, unsafe convictions may/can be amended.

Ground If an unsafe conviction is determined then the sentence is automatically disallowed. The Leaned Magistrate erred in her rendering of a sentence in that it was too draconian in measure. The accused has no previous convictions the sentence issued is unsafe and unsatisfactory.

Ground The reckless manner in which the learned Magistrate handled the case can be described as: irregular; improper; bias; and disproportionate. There were many procedural improprieties in the conduct of the learned Magistrate. For example, on the evidence, the claim that 12 police officers were present is untrue.

There was evidently corroboration prior to the hearing. The question to be posed is why did the learned Magistrate knowingly accepted untruthful statements pertaining to the accused?

Ground Judicial (Tribunal) Review of the sentence and conviction should be conducted in order to disallow the learned Magistrate from using disenfranchised witnesses.

The accused is seeking the Judicial Review Panel to render the following: 1. A declaration that any decision of by the learned Magistrate Nicholas is null and void; 2. A declaration that the learned Magistrate Nicholas acted in bad faith or in a manner which was disproportionate, irregular, and bias; and Or Alternatively that after a proper non-bias investigation is conducted that the accused be put in the position as if the incident never occurred. Based on the aforementioned I pray that this honorary Judicial Appeal Board find the appellant innocent of the allegations and grant her the opportunity to continue to make a contribution to society.

Appeal presented by:

______________________________ Ichelle Jeffords - Appellant 31st May 2012