Solomon v The Queen (Appeal)

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Peterkin, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 02 March 1979
• Neutral Citation: LC 1979 CA 1
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1978
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 02 March 1979

Court of Appeal

Davis, C.J., Peterkin, J.A., Berridge, J.A. (Ag)

Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1978

Solomon

and

The Queen (Appeal)

Appearances:

V. Cooper and L. Riviere with him for the appellant.

G. Da Breo for the Crown.

Practice and procedure - Trial by jury — Failure of trial judge to direct jury on how to deal with appellant's defence which amounted to an alibi and unsworn statement — Appeal allowed.

Peterkin, J.A.

1 The, appellant was on 18/10/78 convicted of the murder of Calixte Saltibus, and was sentenced to death by hanging. He now appeals against his conviction on the following grounds:

• “1. That the learned trial judge misdirected the jury with regard to the manner in which he dealt with or failed to deal with the appellants statement from the dock, in that the learned judge, went beyond the customary and proper practice in directing the jury on how the statement should be regarded and treated by them. And that, the trial judge having told the jury that the appellant chose to exercise his right to make such a statement and that the statement was not given under oath and therefore not subject to cross-examination, he further went on to say that the appellant was afraid of being asked questions by the Crown; thereby, confusing and or misleading the jury as to whether any weight should be attached to the statement and as to whether they should take it into consideration in deciding whether the prosecution have made out their case so that they feel sure that the appellant is guilty.

• 2. That the learned trial judge failed to give full and/or adequate directions to the jury on the specific intent necessary to support a conviction for murder in St. Lucia.

• 3. That the learned trial judge misdirected the jury by not giving them clear and specific directions on how to treat the statement given to the police by the accused.

• 4. That the learned trial judge failed to put the accused defence to the jury.”

2 Ground three has since been abandoned. The facts and circumstances show that on the afternoon of Friday 15th December, 1978, the deceased Calixte Saltibus drove his taxi with the appellant in it from Castries towards Soufriere. Saltibus was not seen again until the morning of Sunday 18th December when his dead body was discovered at Bouton. He was last seen by Thomas Seraphin at Anse-la Raye at about 5:30 p.m. on Friday 16th December when the appellant was seen to be sitting in the front seat next to him at which time, a brief conversation took place between the deceased and Seraphin. The deceased's car was seen by Patrick Herelle early that evening at Malmaison which is near to Bouton when he spoke to someone sitting in the drivers seat whom he could not identify. Elwin Laurencin discovered the body of the deceased at about 7 a.m. on the morning of Sunday 18th December, It was seen to be lying at the side of the road. When viewed by Dr. Charles Gutteridge a piece of the jaw had been completely broken apart, and there was a blood-shot bruise under the cheek. Also, the bone at the back of the neck was broken. In the doctor's view, one blow struck with a great deal of force with a...