Elias George Appellant v The Queen Respondent [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: RAWLINS, C.J.,Hugh A. Rawlins,Davidson Kelvin Baptiste,Ian Donaldson Mitchell,Chief Justice,Justice of Appeal,Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
• Judgment Date: 25 July 2011
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2011] ECSC J0725-1
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: HCRAP 2009/005
• Date: 25 July 2011

[2011] ECSC J0725-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon. Mr. Hugh A. Rawlins Chief Justice

The Hon. Mr. Davidson Kelvin Baptiste Justice of Appeal

The Hon. Mr. Ian Donaldson Mitchell Justice of Appeal [AG.]

HCRAP 2009/005

Between:

Elias George

Appellant

and

The Queen

Respondent

RAWLINS, C.J.

1 This is a judgment of the court.

2 On the morning of 12^th January 2006, Feliciana Charles and her daughter, Macrina Charles, were brutally battered to death by the appellant, Elias George. At the time, Feliciana lived in a common law relationship with the appellant. They lived together in a house at St. Lawrence Estate in Anse-La-Raye. Feliciana's daughters, Kaza and Macrina, did not live at that house but they sometimes stayed over when they visited. The relationship between Feliciana and the appellant had a history of violence perpetrated by the appellant. Macrina, with her baby, was spending time at the house which Feliciana shared with the appellant when a quarrel broke out in that house on the morning of 12^th January 2006. The appellant was heard to say, among other things, that he could not take it anymore. The appellant was also heard to say that Feliciana and Macrina were plotting to put him out of the house and he was being told to leave when he was the one who built it. He alleged that Feliciana had received a letter which she was concealing because it must have come from a boyfriend. He was further heard to say that he was going to kill Feliciana and Macrina. The appellant was seen on the balcony striking the floor repeatedly with a two-by-four wooden post. He re-entered the house and screams were heard coming from it. He left the house and went to the home of a neighbour, Joseph Cornibert, and told him that he had just killed 2 persons. The appellant then left on his motor cycle. He went to Kaza's home, and threatened to kill her and her boyfriend. He told them that he had already killed 2 persons. He then rode through the village proclaiming that he had just killed 2 persons.

3 Villagers found Feliciana and Macrina lying dead on the floor of the house in pools of blood with their faces smashed. The appellant returned to the scene that same morning and was arrested by the police. On 13^th January 2006, he gave a statement under caution to the police in which he stated that he was involved in a quarrel and a fight with Feliciana and he took the piece of wood and struck her first and then Macrina. The appellant was convicted on 8^th May 2009 for the murders of Feliciana and Macrina and he was sentenced to death by hanging. He appealed against his conviction and sentence.

The appeal against conviction

4 There were three grounds of appeal. The first was, in brief, that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory and should not be allowed to stand. On this ground, Mr. Mondesir, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the behaviour of the appellant before, during and after the commission of the offence, coupled with the previous mental history of the appellant, and the clinical examination of the appellant by Dr. Nicole Edgecombe, pointed to this. However, at the hearinglearned counsel, Mr. Mondesir, very wisely in our view, withdrew that ground of appeal.

5 The second ground of appeal complained that the learned trial judge failed to direct the jury on the defence of provocation, thereby depriving the appellant of the possibility of a verdict of manslaughter. Counsel submitted that this omission was fatal to the conviction for murder. In our view, Counsel correctly stated the principles in relation to provocation, particularly taken fromLewis v The State [2011] UKPC 151, and, more particularly, the provision of section 91 of the Criminal Code 2004. The latter provides that where on a charge of murder there is evidence on which a jury can find that the person who is charged was provoked, whether by things said or done, or by both, to lose his or her self control, the question whether provocation was enough to make a reasonable person do the act that occasioned death shall be left to be determined by the jury. The provision continues that in determining the question, the jury shall take into account everything both said and done according to the effect which in their opinion it would have on a reasonable person.

6 During the course of the hearing of the appeal we indicated to Mr. Mondesir that we did not agree that the facts on which he relied, which were mainly from the statement which the appellant gave to the police, were sufficient to raise the issue of provocation as a live issue requiring a provocation direction. We did not see, for example, how it could have arisen because Feliciana and/or Macrina may have threatened to put the appellant out of the house, even if he was mainly responsible for building it, particularly given the history of the abusive relationship. Even if we are wrong in that conclusion, as we indicated at the hearing, the evidence is so overwhelming in pointing to the guilt of the appellant that, in my view, no reasonable jury properly directed on provocation would have reached a different verdict from that which they reached in this case. The evidence leaves no doubt that the appellant was properly convicted of murder.

7 In the forgoing premises, the appeal against conviction is dismissed and the conviction of the appellant for the murders of Feliciana and Macrina Charles is affirmed.

The appeal against sentence

8 The third ground of appeal is against the sentence of death. It states that the sentence of death was wrongly imposed and manifestly excessive because the trial judge failed to adopt the proper approach to the discretionary death sentence. Counsel relied, in particular, on the decisions of the Privy Council in the case ofDaniel Dick Trimmingham v R [2009] UKPC 252, R v Earlin WhiteUNK [2010] UKPC 223, Leslie Pipersburgh and Patrick Robateau v RUNK [2008] UKPC 3454, Devon...