Lubin v Pierre or Claudius

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Bishop, J.
• Judgment Date: 29 July 1968
• Neutral Citation: LC 1968 HC 19
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1968
• Date: 29 July 1968

West Indies Associated States Supreme Court. (High Court)

Bishop. J.A., Peterkin, J.A.

Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1968

Lubin

and

Pierre or Claudius

Appearances:

V. Cooper for appellant.

Respondent in person.

Criminal law - Appeal against decision — Assault — The respondent was charged with unlawful assault with a deadly instrument contrary to section 112(a) of the Criminal code. The complaint was dismissed. The sargeant appealed on the ground that the magistrate's decision was wrong.

Held: By virtue of section 1101 of the Criminal Code every complaint shall be deemed divisible and if the commission of the offence charged includes the commission of any offence so included which is proved although the whole offence charged is not proved. In the light of this provision and the findings of the magistrate there was an ordinary assault and the defendant ought properly to have been convicted of an assault under section 114 of the Criminal Code. Appeal dismissed.

Bishop, J.

1 Charles Pierre, laborer of Beaugist, in the Quarter of Castries was charged that he on Sunday the 9 ^th July 1967 at about 3.00 p.m. at Marquis Estate did unlawfully assault Francis St. Edward with a deadly instrument to wit: a shot gun contrary to section 112(a) of the Criminal Code of this territory.

2 On the 21 ^st February this year, the learned magistrate dismissed the complaint after hearing the witness St. Edward on behalf of the prosecution, and from the defendant in his defence.

3 The appellant Sgt. Lubin lodged his notice of appeal and grounds of appeal on the 6 ^th March. There were some eight grounds of appeal stated, but counsel did not pursue the first six, and the court has only considered the grounds 7 and 8 in his reasons for appeal. Ground 7 — “that the dismissal is altogether unwarranted by the evidence and is entirely against the weight of the evidence” and Ground 8 — “That the defendant is guilty of the offence charged.”

4 The learned magistrate's reasons for his decision are not lengthy and I shall repeat them in full.

“The complainant's case was that he had been assaulted with a deadly instrument to wit a shot gun. The assault was occasioned when the defendant pointed or aimed the shotgun at him. The complainant's case was not a case of simple assault under section 114 of the Criminal Code but rather the mode of assault as provided for in section 112(2). The complainant was not supported in his case to this...