George v Anslem

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Wills, J.
• Judgment Date: 22 May 1958
• Neutral Citation: LC 1958 HC 1
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 22 May 1958

Supreme Court of the Windward Islands and Leeward Islands. (Appellate Jurisdiction)

Wills, J.

George

and

Anslem

Appearances:

J.G.M. Compton for appellant.

E.A. Heyliger, Crown attorney for respondent.

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence — Wounding.

Facts: Whether sentence was excessive. The appellant was convicted of wounding and was sentenced to four months imprisonment.

Held: In view of the fact that the wound was caused by a stone and that it was superficial, as well as taking the age and character of the appellant into consideration, the sentence would be reduced to twenty eight days.

Wills, J.

1 On 31st January 1958, the Magistrate of the First District Court sitting at Gros Islet convicted the appellant on two (2) charges of wounding and sentenced him to four (4) months imprisonment with hard labour on each charge. The sentences to run concurrently.

2 The appellant now appeals and relies on the General Statutory Grounds of Appeal as provided by Section 1118 of the Criminal Code.

3 The appeal was argued by counsel for appellant mainly on the ground “that the punishment was excessive”.

4 The cases were taken together and the evidence disclosed that the appellant was on familiar terms with the daughter of Rose Benoit and that on the 30th day of January 1958, Rose Benoit and her father R.C. Orillien Actie went to the home of the appellant for the purpose of seeing the girl. Whilst there an altercation ensued which resulted in the appellant being charged with wounding Rose Benoit and Orillien Actie. The wound in each case was caused by the use of a stone.

5 It must be mentioned that no medical testimony was led at the trial and there is no evidence on the record to indicate that medical attention was necessary or treatment had to be sought, obtained or was rendered.

6 It would therefore appear that the wound in each case was not of a serious nature but rather superficial.

7 The court thinks it right to take in account and will take into account upon reviewing the punishment imposed by the magistrate such circumstances as to where and when the offences were committed, the manner in which the offences were committed, the thing used in committing the offences, the previous character and age of the appellant, which was given as being 20 years.

8 Having regard to the foregoing the court has come to the conclusion that justice will be done if some merciful consideration is extended...