William v The Crown

JurisdictionSt Lucia
JudgeWills, J.
Judgment Date10 December 1958
Neutral CitationLC 1958 CA 3
Docket NumberNo. 1 of 1958
CourtCourt of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
Date10 December 1958

Supreme Court of the Windward Islands and Leeward Islands. Court of Appeal

Gordon, Acting C.J.

Lewis, J.

Taylor, J.

No. 1 of 1958

William
and
The Crown
Appearances:

Mr. M. M. Mason for the appellant.

Mr. N.A. Berridge, Acting Crown attorney for the respondent.

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Murder

Facts: The issue was whether the trial judge had failed to direct the jury properly on the question of self defence.

Held: The direction to the jury on the issue of self defence was inadequate, but the evidence was so overwhelming that the jury had they been properly directed on this issue would inevitably have come to the same conclusion. Court applied section 4(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907 since there was no miscarriage of justice. Appeal dismissed.

Wills, J.
1

On the 9th October 1958, the appellant was convicted on an indictment for murder, and sentenced to death. On the 16th October he filed an application for leave to appeal on the following grounds: –

  • (1) That the learned trial judge erred in law in that he failed to direct the jury that for the purpose of defending himself against dangerous or grievous harm the accused was entitled to use necessary force or harm extending in case of extreme necessity even to killing;

  • (2) That the learned trial judge erred in that he failed to direct the jury to consider whether at the time when the accused struck the blow which, caused the death of the deceased he was in danger of grievous harm to himself from the deceased, and whether the force used by the accused was necessary for the purpose for defending himself against such harm;

  • (3) That the defence in so far as it related to self-defence was not adequately put to the Jury.

2

This application was heard on the 28th October 1958, and struck out for the reason that the grounds raised in the application for leave to appeal were points of law, the trial judge holding that in the circumstances there was an unfettered right of appeal by the applicant.

3

On the 31st October, the appellant filed a notice of appeal to this Court from what he termed a refusal of the trial judge to entertain his application or leave to appeal and gave notice that he desired this application to be determined by this Court.

4

On the hearing of this application counsel for the respondent took an objection in limine that the application was not properly before the court in that the trial judge had not refused the application but had merely indicated that a person desiring to appeal to the Court of Appeal against his conviction on a question involving a question of law should commence his appeal by sending to the Registrar a Notice of Appeal.

5

This was not possible because the time within which this application should have been filed, in accordance with Rule 33 of the Windward Islands and Leeward Islands Court of Appeal Rules, 1940 ( Statutory Rules & Orders, 1940, No. 67) had already elapsed.

6

Counsel for the appellant, however, contended that ground 2 of his Notice of Appeal involved a question of mixed law and fact and that he was correct in applying for leave to appeal.

7

We are, however, of the opinion that the trial judge was right in holding that the three grounds mentioned in the appellant's application for leave to appeal involved questions of law solely and that he was right in striking out the application.

8

In view of the serious nature of the offence, however, the court permitted counsel for the appellant to argue the appeal as though he had in fact complied with the rules governing appeals involving questions of law only.

9

The evidence discloses that there was an altercation between the appellant and the deceased over the custody of their child in which the appellant in an attempt to wrest the child from the deceased, twisted the arm of the deceased and threw her to the ground. The timely intervention of one Ida Beharry saved the child from harm, and one Martin Lee...

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