Hamilton v Edwards

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Lewis, C.J.,Gordon, J.A.,Lewis, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 21 January 1971
• Neutral Citation: LC 1971 CA 3
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1971
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 21 January 1971

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J.; Gordon, J.A.; Lewis, J.A.

Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1971

Hamilton

and

Edwards

Appearances:

C. Landers for the appellant.

W. Cenac for the respondent.

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Unlawful wounding

Facts: The appellant was convicted of unlawfully wounding the respondent. The issue was whether the magistrate erred in that he failed to consider adequately and accept the plea of self defence

Held: There was ample justification for the finding of the magistrate that the appellant deliberately struck the respondent and in the circumstances such act did not constitute self defence — Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 The appellant in this case was charged jointly with two other persons for unlawfully wounding the respondent on the 9 ^th August 1970. He was convicted by the learned magistrate for Second District on the 17 ^th November 1970 and fined $20.00 and ordered to pay costs 15.00 and in default he was ordered to serve a term of one month imprisonment. His co-defendants were dismissed.

2 The appellant now appeals from this conviction and sentence on the following grounds:

• (1) that he is not guilty of the offence;

• (2) that the decision is unwarranted by the evidence;

• (3) that the learned magistrate erred in that he failed to consider adequately and accept the plea of self defence.

3 The facts of the case when briefly summarised were as follows: The appellant and some friends were at the bar of a dance hall having drinks when the respondent, who was in no way connected with them, began speaking to one of the girls in the company. This intrusion resulted in the appellant punching the respondent. Soon after this incident the appellant and his friends went outside of the dance hall, and the respondent went to his home.

4 The respondent did not remain at home for very long, but having collected his cutlass, which he had wrapped in a bag, returned to town dressed in the same clothes in which he was at the dance. He was walking along Queen Street when he encountered the appellant and the two co-defendants. According to the respondent they closed in on him and the appellant struck him on his head with a piece of wood which he pulled from a pile which was stacked on the side of the street.

5 According to the story of the appellant, the respondent on seeing him and his friends pulled a cutlass from behind his back and approached him swinging his...