David Brandt (Appellant) v The King (Respondent) (Montserrat)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0006

Jurisdiction

Montserrat

Parties

Appellant(s)

David Brandt

Respondent(s)

The King

Issue

Whether the Court of Appeal erred in: (1) not treating as inadmissible the evidence found in searching the appellant’s cell phone; (2) holding that no jury direction had to be given on accomplice evidence; and (3) not requiring direction to the jury in respect of the transcript given to them, such that the appellant’s conviction is unsafe.

Facts

In September 2015, the Montserrat police obtained a warrant from the Chief Magistrate to search premises occupied by the appellant, David Brandt, for “articles essential to the inquiry into the said offence”. The warrant was based on reasonable suspicion that the appellant had committed the offence of conspiracy to commit unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16. In 2016, the appellant was charged with sexual exploitation offences. In his trial, the prosecution sought to rely on WhatsApp messages, images and other data obtained as a result of searching the appellant’s cell phone. The appellant contended that the search had been unlawful and in breach of his right to privacy under the Montserrat Constitution. The High Court dismissed an application brought by the appellant in 2019 against the Commissioner of Police, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. It held that the application was an abuse of process, since the appellant had an adequate legal remedy in the criminal proceedings. The Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court dismissed his appeal in relation to abuse of process. By majority, it nevertheless considered the search of his cell phone to have been unlawful but not unconstitutional, and to have been admissible. In 2021, the Privy Council held that the Court of Appeal should have left questions concerning admissibility for the criminal trial. Following recommencement of criminal proceedings, the appellant challenged the legality and constitutionality of the search and the admissibility of the contested evidence. The trial judge dismissed the challenge to the legality and constitutionality of the search and to the admissibility of the data. In 2021, the appellant was convicted on six counts of sexual exploitation and one count of perverting the course of justice. Following an appeal on several grounds, the Court of Appeal held in 2025 that the search of the appellant’s phone was illegal and unconstitutional but that the data retrieved therefrom was nevertheless properly admitted into evidence. The appellant’s challenge to the safety of the conviction for failure to give a corroboration warning and any directions in respect of the transcript of a video recorded interview to the jury was also unsuccessful. The appellant now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Date of issue

28 January 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top