(CMR) An appeal by Wayne Myles to have a drug conviction and a lengthy sentence of 11 years overturned has been denied by the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal.
Myles, who was also convicted of six pimping charges in 2019, was charged with possession with intent to supply 1.88 g of cocaine on 15 June 2016 at the Lone Star parking lot, and possession with intent to supply 3.89 g and 0.765 g of cocaine on 2 February 2017 at North Church Street.
He was also charged with being concerned in the supply of cocaine between 10 October 2014 and 15 June 2016; and being concerned in the supply of ganja between 10 October 2014 and 15 June 2016.
Although he admitted to being in possession of the drug in 2016 and 2017, Myles had argued that the drug was for his personal use. He was, however, convicted on all four charges.
On 12 June 2019, Myles was convicted of four offenses in connection with controlled drugs by Magistrate Gunn in Summary Court. He subsequently appealed against conviction and sentence to the Grand Court, but the court dismissed both appeals on 29 July 2021.
He filed a new appeal with the Court of Appeal this year. In appealing his conviction and sentence, Myles argued that the Magistrate erred in allowing an expert witness to give opinion evidence on matters which fell outside her established expertise. He also argued that the Magistrate should have stayed proceedings as an abuse of process on the basis that the evidence contained in a Galaxy phone was ‘sat on' by the prosecution and used to mount a ‘second bite of the cherry' prosecution for two of the charges.
Myles also believes the Magistrate erred when she ruled that the third was laid within the required period of 6 months and was therefore not statute-barred.
In handing down its decision, the Appeal Court dismissed the grounds for appeal, stating that the Limitation Act has no application prosecutions in criminal cases; it is concerned solely with certain civil cases.
The court also believes that Myles's argument that his trial was unfair and an abuse of process to prosecute him separately in the Grand Court and the Summary Court for offenses that were part of a series of events is not correct. Court documents state that Myles' real complaint is that they reached the wrong conclusion on the facts of this case. However, the Appeals Court stated that the court reached the correct decision.