Justin v the Queen
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Baptiste, J.A. |
| Judgment Date | 26 June 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 2012 CA 4 |
| Docket Number | HCRAP 5 of 2008 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia) |
| Date | 26 June 2012 |
Court of Appeal
Edwards, J.A.; Baptiste, J.A.; Thom, J.A. (Ag.)
HCRAP 5 of 2008
Ms. Wauneen Louis-Harris for the appellant
Ms. Victoria Charles-Clarke (Director of Public Prosecutions) for the respondent
Criminal Law - Murder — Appeal against conviction — Directions to the jury — Good character direction.
On 3rd July 2008 after a trial before Benjamin, J. and a jury, Theresa Anne Marie Justin (“the appellant”) was convicted for the murder of William Andrew (“the deceased”) and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. The appellant appeals against her conviction and sentence.
The deceased lived at Waterworks Road, Castries in 2005. The appellant worked for the deceased for about four years, taking care of his sick and wheelchair-bound wife. He paid her $500.00 dollars a month. The appellant treated the deceased well. At one time he was her sole support, giving her money she relied upon for supporting herself and her children. Upon the expiration of his wife, the appellant and her children moved in with the deceased. The appellant and the deceased had also developed a sexual relationship. Though the appellant later moved out of the house, she continued to provide household and laundry services for the deceased.
At about 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, 30th January 2005, the appellant was found lying on a chair at his home with multiple head injuries. He was taken to the Victoria Hospital and succumbed to his injuries on 7th February 2005. Dr. Stephen James King, a pathologist, conducted a post-mortem examination on the deceased on 10th February 2005 and observed a number of contusions (bruises) mainly to the head and front of the neck. There was a large contusion to the left frontal and temporal areas of the head and associated soft tissue hemorrhage. There was a contusion to the right temporal area with underlying hemorrhage. Dr. King concluded that the cause of death was brain damage with intracranial and intracerebral hemorrhage, that is, bleeding inside the skull and brain tissue. Dr. King opined that the injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma and the most significant force appeared to have been inflicted to the left side of the head. Dr. King stated that an object like the tape recorder shown to him in court could have caused the injuries.
The prosecution's case depended heavily on the evidence of Dave Justin, the appellant's nephew. Justin testified that on 30th January 2005 he visited his sister who lived about 300 yards behind the deceased's house and left at about 11:00 a.m. While walking down the road by the deceased's house, he saw the appellant on the balcony of the house. The appellant asked him where he was coming from, and he replied, by his sister. The appellant walked with him down the road. Justin inquired as to the purpose of the visit to the deceased's home, to which the appellant replied that she came to collect money the deceased had for her. She told Justin that the deceased intended to have her on “maji” (nonsense) for her money. She further told Justin that she had knocked out the deceased with a radio on his head but she does not know whether he died. Justin asked the appellant why she did that and the appellant replied that it was her money that she wanted, so that's why she did that. Justin and the appellant then parted company. In cross-examination, Justin insisted that the appellant told him that she had hit the deceased on the head with a radio. Another prosecution witness, Caesar Maglorie, gave evidence that about 2:30 p.m. that same day, 30th January 2005, he saw the appellant sitting on a chair on the left side of the deceased's house. The appellant called out to him, he responded, and went along his way. He did not see the deceased at the time. Gregory Timal gave evidence that he discovered the deceased lying in a chair when he went to the deceased's home at about 5:30 p.m. that day to play a game of draughts. The deceased's face was swollen and there was blood on his mouth and on the wall and floor. There was also a double tape-deck radio on the floor about seven feet away.
On 24th February 2005, the police conducted a confrontation between the appellant and one Samantha Annius during which Samantha Annius stated that she saw the appellant arrive and leave the house of the deceased between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on Sunday, 30th January 2005. A confrontation was also conducted between the appellant and Justin on 9th March 2005 in which Justin stated that he met the appellant on Waterworks Road “after ten and minutes to eleven” and the appellant told him that she had just come from the deceased's home to look for money and he said he did not have any so she struck him with a radio on his head. Anne Maria Arthur, the deceased's sister, related an incident involving a verbal confrontation occurring on 3rd May 2005 during which she accused the appellant of killing her brother. The appellant asked her whether she knew that the deceased was making “bomb” and also told her that the deceased gave her (the appellant) a ring and a fridge by making “bomb”. Anne Maria understood “bomb” to mean engaging in sex for reward. Anne Maria also stated that the appellant said she hit the deceased on his head with a radio.
The appellant gave evidence on oath basically stating that she went to the home of the deceased at about 11:00 a.m. on Sunday, 30th January 2005 and remained there for about 15 minutes, then left. They spoke about a panty, belonging to the appellant that was missing from the house and a packet of salt-fish which the deceased accused her of taking. She denied striking the deceased with a radio or causing any harm to him. The appellant admitted meeting Justin near the deceased's house but denied telling him that she had struck the deceased with a tape on his head and she did not know whether he had died. The appellant denied telling Justin that she had gone to look for money and that the deceased was giving her “maji” (nonsense) for her money. The appellant also denied telling Anne Maria Arthur that she had struck the deceased with a radio on his head because he did not pay her “bomb” money. The appellant stated that she had no problem with Justin and insisted that she did not hit the deceased or return to his home.
The appellant testified that at the time of his death she was not working for the deceased and that when she went to the deceased he did not owe her any money. The appellant stated that on 30th January 2005, she visited the home of her children's father and he gave her $250.00. It was from there that she went to the deceased's home, arriving there at around 11 o'clock. In cross-examination, the appellant reiterated that she got money from her children's father and denied that she went to the deceased to collect money and stated he did not owe her any money. The appellant also denied that the conversation with Justin ever took place but could proffer no reason as to why he would have made up that story.
There was no eyewitness account of the murder and no forensic evidence linking the appellant with the crime. It is evident that Justin's evidence was central to the success of the prosecution's case and faced with the sworn evidence of the appellant, the issue of credibility was critical. The learned trial judge was patently conscious of the important role credibility played in the case. The judge told the jury that:
“It becomes important at this trial to bear in mind that you must feel sure of the guilt of the Accused because at the end of the day, you're being asked to decide whether to believe Dave Justin in preference to the Accused. And so, your deliberations as to the credibility of the witnesses will be of extreme importance in this matter.” (See p. 32 of the Transcript of Trial Proceedings for 3rd July 2008.)
In that vein, the learned judge also told the jury that Dave Justin, the appellant's nephew, was the Crown's main witness and it was important for them to determine his credibility – if he is speaking the truth.
The appellant had no previous convictions. Inexplicably, the appellant's then counsel, Mr. Felix, did not bring out that fact during the trial. The appellant did not therefore have the benefit of a good character direction. During the course of the appeal hearing, Ms. Louis-Harris, the appellant's counsel, made an oral application to amend the grounds of appeal to include the absence of a good character direction. Although the application to amend was not granted, the Court decided to consider the issue of the absence of a good character direction under the ground of appeal that “the verdict is unsafe and unsatisfactory”.
The safety of the appellant's conviction is assailed on the grounds that: (1) the decision is not altogether supported by the evidence; (2) the learned trial judge allowed inadmissible evidence to be admitted before the jury; (3) the appellant's case was not properly put before the jury; and (4) the verdict is unsafe and unsatisfactory. With respect to sentence, the appellant contends that the sentence is excessive.
I will address the grounds of unsafety of conviction and evidence not supporting the decision together. I will begin by considering the issue of good character. In Teeluck and John v. The State, [2005] UKPC 14 at para. 33 the applicable principles were encapsulated in the following propositions:
“(i) When a defendant is of good character, i.e has no convictions of any relevance or significance, he is entitled to the benefit of a good character direction from the judge when summing up to the jury, tailored to fit the circumstances of the case: Thompson v. The Queen [1998] AC 811, following R v. Aziz [1996] AC 41 and R v. Vye [1993] 1 WLR 471.
(ii) The direction...
To continue reading
Request your trial