Cayman Fumbles First Ever Fentanyl Conviction. First Conviction Overturned Due To Judge’s Failure To Comply With Procedures. Second Conviction Quashed Because The Judge Misdirected Herself.

By Alric Lindsay

Adrian Frederick Scales, a US citizen who landed in the Cayman Islands in October 2022 with 0.09 grams of Fentanyl in his backpack, has had his second conviction quashed by the Hon. Justice Peters following an appeal by his attorney, Jonathon Hughes.  The basis for quashing the second conviction was that the second magistrate who convicted him made a fatal misdirection regarding the burden of proof.  This is the second time Scales has been successful in challenging the Cayman courts, the first being the overturning of his first conviction on the basis that the first magistrate did not take proper notes in accordance with Section 26 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act.

First Conviction: Magistrate’s Failure To Comply With Procedures

As noted in our previous story, Scales was first convicted in August 2023.

To comply with the Summary Jurisdiction Act, “Subject to any other law, in all proceedings before the court at every stage thereof, the magistrate shall be responsible for ensuring that a proper record is maintained of the proceedings and that the oral evidence given before such court, or so much thereof as the magistrate considers material, is taken down in writing either by that magistrate or by a Clerk of the Court under the magistrate’s supervision.”

The Summary Jurisdiction Act adds: “Any such record of the evidence shall be signed by the magistrate when the magistrate is satisfied that it is an accurate and faithful record.”

To properly appeal his first conviction, his lawyer needed to see the magistrate’s record of the proceedings.

His lawyer was entitled to this information due to the requirements under Section 175 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This entitles Scales “to receive with all convenient speed a copy of the evidence taken by the court in the case, and also a copy of the conviction, order or judgment made or given.”

As stated in our previous story, it is understood that “no notes of evidence [were] provided” and the magistrate’s sentencing judgment contained only “a broad overview of the allegation.” 

In the absence of notes, the court agreed with Scales’ lawyer that his conviction was “unsafe and unsatisfactory.” The conviction was therefore set aside, and a re-trial was ordered.

Second Conviction: Magistrate Misdirected Herself

Reportedly, Scales was retried and convicted in the Summary Court in January 2025.

This second conviction was appealed on the ground that the judge misdirected herself regarding the burden of proof.

According to Blackstone’s, a popular legal reference, at paragraph B19.110, there is an evidential burden on the defence and a legal burden on the prosecution.  

Explaining what should occur, Blackstones (at paragraph B19.111) says, “the evidence would have to be to the effect that the accused neither knew of nor suspected nor had reason to suspect the existence of the fact alleged by the prosecution which it was necessary for the prosecution to prove if he was to be convicted of the offence charged.”

In the case of Scales, it is understood that he loaned his backpack to a friend and was neither aware nor had reason to suspect the existence of Fentanyl in the bag.

Regarding this, Blackstone’s states (at paragraph B19.111) that the prosecution must “meet that defence and to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt that it should be rejected.”

Blackstones concludes:

If the jury believe evidence that the accused neither knew of nor suspected nor had reason to suspect the existence of the relevant fact, he must be acquitted.

Even if they are not prepared to go so far as to believe that evidence, but are left in reasonable doubt about that matter, he must also be acquitted.

In the circumstances, it is understood that the second magistrate misdirected herself and may have “conflated” the two elements of the burden of proof, one of which is evidential and the other of which is legal. That is, they must be considered separately.

In the Grand Court on June 9, 2025, the Hon Justice Peters referred to this misdirection as “fatal” and allowed the appeal against the second conviction and quashed it.  She then queried whether the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions would seek a third trial.

Responding to the Hon. Justice Peters, DPP Crown Counsel said that the director of the DPP needed until June 13, 2025, to consider the matter because it was not entirely clear what the reasons were for the overturning of the first conviction and the director needed to have a look at all the circumstances.  DPP Crown Counsel also noted that he hadn’t seen a copy of the judgment.

In the circumstances, Scales’ attorney agreed to allow the director of the DPP a few days to consider whether a third trial would be sought.

Between June 9 and 13, 2025, the Hon. Justice Peters ordered that the media were prohibited from publishing the quashing of the conviction.

On June 13, 2025, the Hon. Justice Peters was informed that the DPP would not seek a third trial.  At this time, the Hon. Justice Peters lifted the prohibition on media reporting.

Notes to readers:

This case highlights the importance of judges following procedures and understanding the law.

A lack of compliance with procedures resulted in the first conviction being overturned.

A misunderstanding of the two elements of the burden of proof led to the second magistrate misdirecting herself and the second conviction being quashed.

Case reference: SCA 2/24

Relevant statute: Misuse of Drugs Act

Relevant case law:

Lambert [2001] UKHL 37
Henvey v HM Advocate [2005] HCJAC 10
Hamdi-Romanica v R [2021 (1) CILR 728]

Share on Facebook

Post on X