Sydney Hall v The Queen [ECSC]

JurisdictionSt Lucia
JudgeDAVIS, C.J.,CHIEF JUSTICE
Judgment Date01 November 1977
Judgment citation (vLex)[1977] ECSC J1101-1
Date01 November 1977
CourtCourt of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
Docket NumberCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1 of 1977
[1977] ECSC J1101-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon. Sir Maurice Davis, Q.C.—Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice St. Bernard

The Honourable Mr. Justice Peterkin

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1 of 1977

Between:
Sydney Hall
and
The Queen
Appearances:

Kenneth Foster and Beryl Edwards with him for Appellant.

L. Williams, Attorney-General for Respondent.

DAVIS, C.J.
1

delivered the Judgment of the Court:

2

The Appellant was convicted on the 10th February, 1977, for the murder of Jameson Albert and sentenced to death by hanging. He has appealed on four grounds which will be referred to at a later stage.

3

The deceased Jameson Albert was the husband of Veronica Albert but lived periodically overseas. During the husband's absence Veronica became intimate with the appellant and she bore him a child. Despite this, however, whenever the husband returned to St. Lucia Veronica resumed living with him. On the 2nd July, 1976, the appellant bought a house and erected it on lands at Monchy belonging to Veronica's father and lived there with her until about the 6th November, 1976when the deceased arrived in the state. On that date he met his wife near the Castries Market and asked for reconciliation. She agreed and the same day spoke to the appellant by the same market telling him of her intention to resume living with her husband. The appellant told her that he knew her husband had returned to St. Lucia and then instructed her to remove all her belongings from his house. Veronica removed the articles and the following Wednesday the appellant nailed up the doors and windows of the house. On Thursday he reopened the house and told Veronica to replace the articles in the house. She refused and never returned to the house. On Friday, 12th November, 1976, at about 3.30 p.m. the deceased was along with one Emmanuel Duncan and appellant came up to them and said to the deceased, "I am the master of this woman's….., I am going to kill you before it is 6 o'clock". Duncan said to the appellant what kind of foolish talk was that and asked him whether he was going to kill him for his own wife. The appellant replied that he did not care and that whatever happened, happened. The appellant left. Before this incident on the same day one Lera Joseph heard the appellant spoke derogatively about the deceased's wife to the deceased and heard him tell the deceased, "you are not sure to pass this Friday night, you are bound to die and leave Veronica for me."

4

About 6 p.m. Bertillia Valtie, an old woman, who was at her daughter Florita's home where Veronica, the deceased and her children stayed for the time being, saw the appellant arrive and about 7 p.m. he went inside the house and searched. He then said "you all have hidden Veronique. If it is hide you all have hidden Veronique I will know what to do." Apellant then pulled a knife from his pocket and stabbed the deceased behind his neck. She stated that he stabbed five times and kept dragging the deceased until they reached a potato patch. She screamed and the appellant shouted at her, "madam". After the appellant finished he kicked the deceased and said, "salop, you will leave me alone." She ran away. In cross-examination this witness contradicted herself and stated, "I got frightened when he was killing him. I was inside when the incident started. When I came out I saw the movement of two men fighting. I ran away during the fight. Yes, I saw Sydney stab the deceased."

5

Veronica stated that she was in the kitchen when she heard the appellant asked her son for her and said, "to night I come for your mother, whatever will be, will be." She then ran away and did not return until the following morning.

6

The appellant who gave evidence on oath stated that he lived as man and wife with Veronica from sometime in 1975. He saw Veronica on Saturday the 6th November, 1976, and had some minor quarrel with her about a woman named Olive. As a result of that he did not sleep at Monchy on that night and neither did he go there on Sunday. On Monday he saw the deceased on Jeremie Street but had no quarrel with him. According to the appellant he returned to Monchy on Monday afternoon and Veronica remained there with him until Thursday.On Friday 12th November, 1976, appellant stated he went to Florita's house with milk, bread and a smoke herring but had no knife. He asked Bertillia Valtie for Veronica and was told she went over to one Rollima. He then went to a shop nearby for a quick drink. When he returned he saw Veronica standing about 2ft away from the kitchen steps and the deceased leaning on the kitchen. He did not expect to see the deceased there and was so surprised that he shivered and searching for words he could only say, "you saw the milk and bread I brought you?" She replied that she did not want any milk and he said he would take his child and his milk. While going to the kitchen he grabbed at him and there was a struggle. The deceased then grabbed him by the back and they fell. The deceased got up and kicked him while he was on the ground. He fired another kick at him and he held his foot and the deceased fell. They started fighting and they fell again with the deceased above him throttling him. He held the deceased testicles who then drew a knife. He held the handle of the knife and continued squeezing the testicles. Appellant stated that he got the knife and made a few quick lashes while he was on the ground to relieve the pressure. He denied that he ever made threats to the deceased earlier on that day.

7

The four grounds of appeal are as follows:

  • 1. The learned Trial Judge, in error, failed properly and/or correctly to explain and/or direct the Jury on the Defences of self-defence, manslaughter, in relation to the instant facts of the case.

  • 2. The learned Trial Judge failed properly and/or adequately to put the case of the defence to the Jury, erroneously omitted entirely to refer to the cross-examination of the Prosecution witnesses, wrongfully adopted the Crowns version of the fight, and finally did misdirect the Jury to accept that the Deceased, in that position on top the Accused,could only have been stabbed by the Accused at the front and not at the back, contrary to, as testified by the Accused.

  • 3. In the alternative, the learned Trial Judge erred by his failure to put and/or explain the defence of Accidental Death to the Jury, if in fact, the Jury believed the testimony of Sergeant Cherry.

  • 4. That the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, is unreasonable and unsafe, and cannot be supported.

8

We will deal with grounds 2, 3 and 4 first. On ground 4 Counsel submitted that if the jury accepted the case for the prosecution then the verdict was...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT