Theresa Anne Marie Justin Appellant v The Queen Respondent
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Baptiste JA |
| Judgment Date | 26 June 2012 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2012] ECSC J0626-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia) |
| Docket Number | HCRAP 2008/005 |
| Date | 26 June 2012 |
EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
The Hon. Mde. Ola Mae Edwards Justice of Appeal
The Hon. Mr. Davidson Kelvin Baptiste Justice of Appeal
The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
HCRAP 2008/005
Ms. Wauneen Louis-Harris for the Appellant
Ms. Victoria Charles-Clarke (Director of Public Prosecutions) for the Respondent
Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence – Murder – Credibility of appellant – Jury not given good character direction – Evidence of defendant's good character not adduced by defence counsel at trial – Whether failure to do so fatal to fairness of trial or safety of conviction – Inadmissible evidence – Sections 52 and 72 of the Evidence Act, Cap. 4.15 – Whether sentence excessive
The appellant had worked for the deceased for some time, providing him with household and laundry services. She had also developed a sexual relationship with him. On Sunday, 30 th January 2005 the deceased was attacked at his home. A friend discovered him in the late afternoon of that same day, lying in a chair with multiple head injuries. He died a few days later.
The Crown's case depended mainly on the evidence of the appellant's nephew, who stated that he had seen the appellant in the balcony of the deceased's house on the day the deceased was attacked. He said that the appellant came over to him and told him that she had been in an altercation with the deceased and that she had hit him on the head with a radio. The pathologist who conducted the post-mortem examination testified that the deceased's injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma. There were no eyewitnesses to the murder and neither was there any forensic evidence linking the appellant to the crime. During the trial, defence counsel did not adduce evidence of the appellant's good character, and the trial judge did not give the jury a good character direction. The appellant was found guilty of murder and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
The appellant appealed against her conviction on the grounds that: the decision was not supported by the evidence; the trial judge erred in allowing inadmissible evidence to be admitted before the jury; the appellant's case was not properly put before the jury; and the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. In relation to sentence, the appellant contended that the sentence of 10 years was excessive.
Held: dismissing the appeal and affirming the appellant's conviction and sentence, that:
1. The omission of a good character direction is not necessarily fatal to the fairness of a trial or the safety of a conviction. Much may turn on the nature of and the issues in the case, and on the other available evidence. In the instant case, the jury would inevitably have convicted the appellant even if a good character direction had been given. It cannot be said that the verdict of the jury was unsafe or unsatisfactory, or unsupported by the evidence.
Jagdeo Singh v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2006] 1 WLR 146 applied.
2. The prosecution not producing in court a written record of the confrontations conducted by the police would not have precluded the reception of oral evidence of the confrontations or make the oral evidence inadmissible.
R v Francis (2009) 74 WIR 108 applied.
3. The learned judge adequately conveyed to the jury the fact that there was an absence of forensic evidence in support of the Crown's case. From the summation, the jury would have been left in no doubt that there was no forensic evidence linking the appellant to the crime.
4. The learned judge did not err in principle in sentencing the appellant having taken all matters into consideration including the absence of antecedents and the time she had already spent on remand. There is no proper basis for disturbing the sentence imposed.
On 3 rd July 2008 after a trial before Benjamin J and a jury, Theresa Anne Marie Justin ("the appellant") was convicted for the murder of William Andrew ("the deceased") and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. The appellant appeals against her conviction and sentence.
The deceased lived at Waterworks Road, Castries in 2005. The appellant worked for the deceased for about four years, taking care of his sick and wheelchair-bound wife. He paid her $500.00 dollars a month. The appellant treated the deceased well. At one time he was her sole support, giving her money she relied upon for supporting herself and her children. Upon the expiration of his wife, the appellant and her children moved in with the deceased. The appellant and the deceased had also developed a sexual relationship. Though the appellant later moved out of the house, she continued to provide household and laundry services for the deceased.
At about 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, 30 th January 2005, the appellant was found lying on a chair at his home with multiple head injuries. He was taken to the Victoria Hospital and succumbed to his injuries on 7 th February 2005. Dr. Stephen James King, a pathologist, conducted a post-mortem examination on the deceased on 10 th February 2005 and observed a number of contusions (bruises) mainly to the head and front of the neck. There was a large contusion to the left frontal and temporal areas of the head and associated soft tissue hemorrhage. There was a contusion to the right temporal area with underlying hemorrhage. Dr. King concluded that the cause of death was brain damage with intracranial and intracerebral hemorrhage, that is, bleeding inside the skull and brain tissue. Dr. King opined that the injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma and the most significant force appeared to have been inflicted to the left side of the head. Dr. King stated that an object like the tape recorder shown to him in court could have caused the injuries.
The prosecution's case depended heavily on the evidence of Dave Justin, the appellant's nephew. Justin testified that on 30 th January 2005 he visited his sister who lived about 300 yards behind the deceased's house and left at about 11:00 a.m. While walking down the road by the deceased's house, he saw the appellant on the balcony of the house. The appellant asked him where he was coming from, and he replied, by his sister. The appellant walked with him down the road. Justin inquired as to the purpose of the visit to the deceased's home, to which the appellant replied that she came to collect money the deceased had for her. She told Justin that the deceased intended to have her on "maji" (nonsense) for her money. She further told Justin that she had knocked out the deceased with a radio on his head but she does not know whether he died. Justin asked the appellant why she did that and the appellant replied that it was her money that she wanted, so that's why she did that. Justin and the appellant then parted company. In cross-examination, Justin insisted that the appellant told him that she had hit the deceased on the head with a radio. Another prosecution witness, Caesar Maglorie, gave evidence that about 2:30 p.m. that same day, 30 th January 2005, he saw the appellant sitting on a chair on the left side of the deceased's house. The appellant called out to him, he responded, and went along his way. He did not see the deceased at the time. Gregory Timal gave evidence that he discovered the deceased lying in a chair when he went to the deceased's home at about 5:30 p.m. that day to play a game of draughts. The deceased's face was swollen and there was blood on his mouth and on the wall and floor. There was also a double tape-deck radio on the floor about seven feet away.
On 24 th February 2005, the police conducted a confrontation between the appellant and one Samantha Annius during which Samantha Annius stated that she saw the appellant arrive and leave the house of the deceased between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on Sunday, 30 th January 2005. A confrontation was also conducted between the appellant and Justin on 9 th March 2005 in which Justin stated that he met the appellant on Waterworks Road "after ten and minutes to eleven" and the appellant told him that she had just come from the deceased's home to look for money and he said he did not have any so she struck him with a radio on his head. Anne Maria Arthur, the deceased's sister, related an incident involving a verbal confrontation occurring on 3 rd May 2005 during which she accused the appellant of killing her brother. The appellant asked her whether she knew that the deceased was making "bomb" and also told her that the deceased gave her (the appellant) a ring and a fridge by making "bomb". Anne Maria understood "bomb" to mean engaging in sex for reward. Anne Maria also stated that the appellant said she hit the deceased on his head with a radio.
The appellant gave evidence on oath basically stating that she went to the home of the deceased at about 11:00 a.m. on Sunday, 30 th January 2005 and remained there for about 15 minutes, then left. They spoke about a panty, belonging to the appellant that was missing from the house and a packet of salt-fish which the deceased accused her of taking. She denied striking the deceased with a radio or causing any harm to him. The appellant admitted meeting Justin near the deceased's house but denied telling him that she had struck the deceased with a tape on his head and she did not know whether he had died. The appellant denied telling Justin that she had gone to look for money and that the deceased was giving her "maji" (nonsense) for her money. The appellant also denied telling Anne Maria Arthur that she had struck the deceased with a radio on his head because he did not pay her "bomb" money. The appellant stated that she had no problem with Justin and insisted that she did not hit the deceased or return to his home.
The appellant testified...
To continue reading
Request your trial