Charles et Al v R
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Lewis C.J. |
| Judgment Date | 13 March 1972 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 1972 CA 8 |
| Docket Number | criminal Appeal Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of 1971 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia) |
| Date | 13 March 1972 |
Court of Appeal
Lewis, C.J., Lewis. J.A., Bernard, J.A.
criminal Appeal Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of 1971
C. Landers for appellant Charles.
P. Bledman for appellant Faucher.
C. Mason for appellant Florius.
Criminal law - Appeals against conviction — Murder — Evidence in patois and translated into English by an interpreter — Whether this was prejudicial — Appeals dismissed.
The appellants were charged jointly with the murder at Goodlands near Castries of James Bannerman McDonald Etherington on the 9th-10th June 1971. They were convicted on 23rd October, 1971 and sentenced to death. They now appeal against their conviction.
Mr. Etherington lived with his wife Marjorie at Goodlands in a house belonging to Geest Industries (W.I.) Ltd. for whom he had been working as General Manager from June 1964. On the 9th June 1971 he was at work in the morning at Roseau Estate where he spoke with the witness George Smith. In the afternoon he was at Cul de Sac and spoke with the witness Abel Ghirawoo leaving him at about 6 p.m. The domestic staff of his home Debra Rosemond and William Oscar, left the house at about 3.30 p.m. leaving Mrs. Etherington there. Around 9 p.m. Mr. Ghirawoo spoke over the telephone to Mr. Etherington at is home. Since that day neither Mr. Etherington nor his wife has been seen alive.
During the early hours of the morning of the 10th June the house was seen to be on fire. Abel Ghirawoo, who lives about 100 yards away, ran to the house and called Mr. Etherington's name loudly several times. After some delay the fire brigade arrived and brought the blaze under control but the house was badly damaged. The bedroom section was completely destroyed. Mr. Ghirawoo and Inspector Barrow of the Police Force looked through the window of the Etherington's bedroom and saw two badly charred human bodies on the floor. Dr. Rigsby was called to the scene and pronounced them to be the bodies of a man and a woman. They were burnt beyond facial recognition. Dr. Rigsby observed that the left side of the skull of the male body had been fractured. Later that day (June 10th) Dr. Watty performed a post mortem examination; his report was confirmed on a further post mortem examination performed in Barbados by Professor Simpson with his assistance after exhumation of the bodies. They came to the conclusion that the male body had received a crushing blow to the left side of the head, fracturing the skull and causing surface bruising of the brain quite sufficient to cause unconsciousness and clearly sustained some considerable time before exposure to fire. Their opinion was that death was due not to this injury but to burning and inhalation of smoke fumes.
The police carried out an extensive examination of the burnt house and the surrounding premises. This revealed that entry to the house had been gained through; a window from which four glass louvres had been removed. In the opinion of Mr. Nigel Fuller of the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory the fire had originated in the bedroom and was not accidental, and had been assisted in this room by the introduction of a volatile inflammable liquid. Inspector Barrow found Mr. Etherington's motor car in his garage with the gas tank cover hanging and-a piece of green hose in the tank. This had been cut out from a roll of garden hose nearby. The appellant Charles's fingerprints were found on the glass of the left front door and the appellant Florius' fingerprints were found on the knobs of both front doors. A piece of plastic line partly burnt, removed by Professor Simpson from the female body, was found on examination by Mr. Fuller to correspond with a clothes line found on the Etheringtons' premises.
On the morning of the 10th June, the appellant Florius' mothers Maggie Florius, saw him at her home at about 9 o'clock. She noticed that the left side of his neck was burnt. It had not been burnt when she had seen him on the previous day. She asked him about it and he told her that he had applied a “blister.” She said that could not be the result of a “blister” and he told her not to ask him about it.
On the 17th June, Assistant Superintendent Crichlow went to Maggie Florius' home and met herself and the appellant Florius there. He executed a search and found a dagger which Maggie Florius said in the appellant's presence belonged to him. He observed that Florius had fresh burn marks on the left side of his head and his left forearm. He informed Florius that his fingerprints had been found at the scene of the crime at Goodlands and asked him to account for their presence there. Florius replied “you could never find my prints at Goodlands.” He was taken to Police Headquarters and detained. Dr. Rigsby examined him at the Police Station on 17th June. He found scratches on his chest and neck consistent with lesions caused by finger nails; and partly healed wounds, one on the left side of the neck and the other occupying almost the length of the left forearm: these, Dr. Rigsby said, were consistent with injuries caused by a naked flame.
On June 19th Florius made a statement to Detective Chief Superintendent Morrison of New Scotland Yard. He spoke in patois, which was interpreted by Mr. Crichlow who wrote down the statement in English. Before he made the statement Mr. Morrison told him that the police were investigating the deaths at Goodlands in which he was suspected of being involved. At the trial objection to the admissibility of this statement was taken but overruled. In his statement he said that himself and the two other appellants had broken into the Etheringtons' houses and that on entering the appellant Charles called Faucher's name. He said that Charles struck the man who was lying on his bed a blow on his neck with a piece of wood and that Faucher took the wood from Charles and struck the woman on her forehead. Faucher asked the woman for money and she said that she had no money, only a cheque book. Faucher then said that as the woman had heard Charles call his name they must burn the house; the three of them agreed to do so. Faucher went to the garage and with a piece of hose syphoned the gas from the car and also took a plastic container full of gramoxone. After this had been sprinkled inside the building they went out and Charles lit a match and threw it through the bedroom window. Thinking that the fire had not caught he peeped inside, when the flames suddenly went up and he got burnt at the back of his head.
On the morning of the 19th June the appellant Faucher was taken into custody by Inspector Francis who searched him and, found on him two blue plastic folders. These were similar to folders which Mr. Etherington had in his possession at his home. Faucher when asked to account for his possession of them at first said that he had bought them from a man in Vieux Fort; but he subsequently admitted having taken them from the Etheringtons' house on the night of the 9th-10th. Soon after he was taken to the Police Station he was interviewed by Mr. Morrison who told him that he was making enquiries touching the death of the Etheringtons and would like him to tell him all he knew about it. This was done by verbal questioning and the notes of his replies were made by Mr. Crichlow. Later that day he made a formal statement in which he gave an account of how on the proposal of Florius (whom he called Tipitin) he and Charles went with Florius at about 8.30 p.m. on the night of the 9th June to a house at the Morne where two people lived, for the purpose of stealing a safe. On arrival at the house they hid in the bush at the back of the lawn; he saw a coloured man — an Indian — in the house talking to a white woman. While waiting there, Charles went apart to ease his bowels and while he was away Florius told him that somebody who had a case at the High Court for taking Geest's money had paid him to kill the man. After Charles returned Faucher at Florius request kept an eye on the woman while Charles and Florius went to remove louvres from a window. Then they all entered the house through the window and started to search for the safe. Not finding it Florius said, “let's go in the room where the chap is sleeping.” Charles protested, but they all entered the room. Florius had a knife in one hand and a piece of wood in the other: he lashed the sleeping man on his head with the wood. The man said nothing but the woman bawled. Florins took from his pocket a piece of rope which he had cut in the garage and the three of them tied up the two people. They then searched and found money, He and Charles ate some food in the kitchen and returned to the bedroom. There Charles called Faucher's name and said “let's go.” Florius said “Fooksal (Charles) has mentioned your name and if we leave them alive, when they report to the government the police will arrest you and you will mention our names and we will be arrested.” The appellant Faucher said that both himself and Charles protested against the proposal to kill the people. He could see that they were both alive as their bellies were moving. When they were leaving the house Florius suggested that they should burn the people in the house. He again protested. They went to the garage; Florius cut off a piece of hose, put it into the gasolene tank of the car and siphoned the gas out into a red plastic bucket, saying he would burn the people. Faucher again protested. Florius took the gasolene and the plastic container of gramoxone to the house while Charles and Faucher remained by the garage. After fifteen minutes Florius left the house, went to the window of the bedroom where the people were tied up, threw a lighted match through the louvres and the house caught afire. Then they all ran away. Florius showed him where he had got burnt. On reaching Florius house he divided the money amongst them.
The appellant Charles was seen with...
To continue reading
Request your trial