Michael v R

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Davis, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 05 May 1971
• Neutral Citation: LC 1971 CA 6
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1971
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 05 May 1971

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J., Lewis, J.A., Davis, J.A. (Ag.)

Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1971

Michael

and

R.

Appearances:

K. A. H. Foster for the appellant.

L. A. Williams for the respondent.

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Murder

Facts: The grounds of appeal were inter alia whether the judge failed to properly direct the jury in relation to the facts of the case and whether the judge directed the jury adequately on the question of self defence or accidental death. The facts were that the accused and the deceased were involved in an altercation

Held: On the question of self defence the judge dealt adequately and fairly with all the evidence in the case, and the law applicable thereto which would have enabled the jury to understand the issues involved and to come to a determination upon it. The judge addressed his mind to the question of accidental death and left that issue to the jury. The jury were entitled to return the verdict of guilty on the evidence before them. Appeal dismissed.

Davis, J.A.

1 This is an appeal from a conviction dated 22nd February, 1971. The grounds of appeal are:

• (1) that the learned trial judge failed to direct properly and adequately the jury in relation to the facts of the case; and

• (2) the learned trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on the issue of accidental death.

2 The facts in the case are very simple. On the 10th day of October, 1970, at about 10.00 p.m. there was an altercation between the accused and the deceased. One version of what happened was given by the prosecution, and another version of the incident was given by the defence. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the version given by the defence was to some extent supported by one of the witnesses for the prosecution. The jury had all the facts before them. They had the facts as given by the prosecution's witnesses; they had the facts as given by the appellant and his witness; they had the benefit of counsel's address in which he no doubt pointed out the discrepancies that existed, and also exactly the points which he has raised today.

3 Now the question for consideration is whether on those facts the learned trial judge gave a proper direction to the jury which would enable them to understand the issues in the case. Learned counsel for the appellant has stressed that the learned judge failed to direct the jury adequate on the question of self-defence. We have...