Edward v Monrose

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: St. Bernard, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 10 April 1970
• Neutral Citation: LC 1970 CA 4
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1970
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 10 April 1970

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J., Lewis, J.A., St. Bernard (Ag.)

Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1970

Edward

and

Monrose

Appearances:

Appellant in person.

E.H. Giraudy for respondent.

Elections - Whether appellant uttered words designed to affect the return of the complainant as an election candidate.

St. Bernard, J.A.

1 The respondent in this case was charged that he on the 20 ^th April 1969, at a public political meeting held in Anse-la-Raye in the second Judicial District of the State of St. Lucia did, for the purpose of affecting the return of the complainant herein a candidate for the ninth electoral district at the general elections of the State of Lucia held on the 25 ^th April 1969, made a false statement of fact in relation to the character of the said complaint to wit: “Archie burnt his wife's vagina, and when I attended to her she was smelling so much I had to turn my face” contrary to section 71(3) of the House of Assembly Elections Ordinance Chapter 121 of the Laws of St. Lucia.

2 This complaint was heard by the magistrate and concluded on the 12 ^th of February 1970. The result of this trial was that the charge against the respondent was dismissed. The complainant/appellant was dissatisfied with this decision and has appealed to this court.

3 The case really was one which involved a simple question of fact for the magistrate to decide. That question might be put in this way: was the magistrate satisfied so as to make him feel sure that the respondent used the words complained of and that they were false?

4 There were three witnesses for the complainant including the complainant himself. He himself did not hear the words used but his evidence was that he never burnt his wife. In other words he has complained that the words used affected his character and that they were false. His next witness was Martin JnBaptiste who testified that he heard the words used by the respondent at a political meeting held by the respondent on the 20 ^th April 1969. The magistrate impliedly rejected this evidence as also the evidence of one Desir who was the other witness for the complainant.

5 For the defence the respondent himself gave evidence and denied that he used the words complained of and stated that he never attended to the complainant's wife. In fact there was no evidence at all that he ever did attend to the complainant's wife. One Harris Paul also gave evidence and stated that he was at the meeting and...