Richardson v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Peterkin, J.A. |
| Judgment Date | 07 November 1979 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 1979 CA 3 |
| Date | 07 November 1979 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia) |
| Docket Number | Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1979 |
Court of Appeal
Davis, C.J., Peterkin, J.A., Berridge, J.A. (Ag.)
Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1979
P. Bledman, Esq. For the appellant.
P. Husbands, Esq., for the Crown.
Practice and procedure - Trial by jury — Directions to jury on evidence — Appeal allowed.
The appellant was convicted on the 15th June, 1979, of 2 offences, namely; causing grievous harm to Charles Alexander and unlawfully causing wounds to him. That is to say, he was convicted on counts (1) and (2) of the 3 count indictment. He was sentenced to 2 years hard labour on each count to run concurrently. He has appealed against his conviction on 3 grounds:
(1) That the learned trial judge, in error, misdirected the jury to negate the doctors statement “that Charles told him that he did not know who had wounded him”.
(2) That the learned trial judge failed properly or adequately to put the case of the defence to the jury.
And the third ground added at a later stage, namely:
That the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory having regard to the evidence.
Briefly, the facts axe as follows:
On the 12th February, 1978, according to the witness Charles Alexander, he Alexander was standing at the corner of Riverside Road and Grass Street, Castries. As he entered Grass Street, he received a blow from behind on his face and fell. According to him, it was the appellant who struck him. He tried to get up, and received another blow on the forehead. He got up and ran into an alley and the appellant, he said, ran after him with a cutlass. Alexander then ran to the hospital where he was examined by Dr. Amud Kumar Pujore and detained. He was interviewed by the police at the hospital. According to the evidence of Dr. Pujore whose deposition was admitted, it was a serious injury and could have been caused by a cutlass. He also stated in cross-examination that Alexander had said to him that he did not know who had injured him. The doctor said that he saw no injury to the forehead.
On the following day, the appellant was interviewed by the police who told him of the report. He was not arrested by them, but received a summons about one month later charging him with the offence.
To identify the appellant as having committed the offence, the Crown, in addition to the evidence of Alexander, also relied at the trial on the testimony of 3 witnesses, namely, Allan Joseph, Denis Nelson and Trevor McDonald. Joseph said, and I quote: –
“Whilst I was standing on the pavement I heard a big noise. I moved forward to the direction of the noise. I see Charles Alexander coming down the sidewalk of Grass Street. He was walking. I see him miss a fall on the road. When I go close to him I see he was with blood on him. He moved into a yard basement. Later on I see Mr. Richardson, he and a next friend of his. Richardson had a cutlass in his hand. Garbo was with Richardson. They were on Grass Street. By that time Charles Alexander gone already.”
Nelson said as follows: –
“We were talking. I heard a sound like a lash. This noise came from behind a truck that was parked on Grass Street. I saw Charles Cochon on the other sidewalk He was on the ground. We ran across to see what happen I saw Wally with a cutlass in his hand. He was standing from here to Mr. DaBreo away from Charles. He was holding the cutlass up-raised. I saw no one else with a cutlass. Cochon was trying to run away. He was about getting up. He got up. He ran into the yard in an alley. Accused ran behind Charles. Whilst he was running behind Charles he had the cutlass above his shoulders.”
The third witness, McDonald, said this: –
“I was sitting on Miss Agatha's wall. I heard a noise. I saw Charles Cochon fall in a gutter. I moved to my house.”
Then he was cross-examined and he said this: –
“I saw Charlie on Grass Street. I can't recall Garbo or Ces Toutes there. There was a crowd. I didn't see Charles Cochon coming from Chaussee side. I gave evidence on oath.”
And in answer to the courts he said the following: –
“When I saw Charlie he was standing, from you to chair was distance between Wally and Charles. Wally was carrying a cutlass. Charlie tried to get up. He fell back again. He calmly got up and dash through the yard.”
Apart from Alexander's evidence, there was no evidence to show that the appellant actually inflicted the wound. Of the 3 other witnesses named, only one of them, Nelson, claims to have seen the appellant holding the cutlass upraised and Alexander on the Ground. Joseph saw the appellant with a cutlass after Alexander had already gone; while the witness McDonald speaks of the appellant carrying a cutlass when he saw him. The appellant himself, it should be borne in mind,...
To continue reading
Request your trial