Wilson JN Baptiste Appellant The Queen Respondent [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: DAVIS C.J,CHIEF JUSTICE
• Judgment Date: 14 October 1976
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1976] ECSC J1014-1
• Date: 14 October 1976
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3 of 1976

[1976] ECSC J1014-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Honourable the Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice St. Bernard

The Honourable Mr. Justice Peterkin

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3 of 1976

Between:

Wilson JN Baptiste

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Appearances:

The applicant in person

P.J. Husbands for respondent

DAVIS C.J

1 delivered the Judgment of the Court.

2 This is an application by Wilson Jn Baptiste for leave to appeal against two convictions; one for rape and the other for unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl of the age of 13 years.

3 The application was first made to a single judge and leave was refused. In relation to conviction the summing up of the learned trial judge was thorough, careful and fair; and the jury had their minds properly directed to the issues that they had to bear in mind and the evidence which related thereto. It is impossible to say that they were not entitled to come to the conclusion that the charge of rape was made out. The application in relation to that offence is accordingly refused.

4 But this Court observes that the applicant was convicted not only on the full charge but also on the lesser (though just as grave) charge of unlawful charnal knowledge of a female of the age of 13 years. This offence was in relation to the same girl and in relation to the same incident and that he was sentenced in respect thereof to a concurrent term of two years imprisonment.

5 It is perfectly clear on reading the record that the two charges related to one and the same incident. It does not seem to this Court rightor desirable that one and the same incident should be made the subject ratter of distinct charges, so that hereafter it may appear to those not familiar with the subject-matter that two entirely separate offences were committed. Were this permitted generally, a single offence could frequently give rise to a multiplicity of charges; and great unfairness could ensue.

6 This same point was considered in the case ofR. v. Lewis 9 W.I.R. at page 333, which is reported in 9 W.I.R. at page 333. In that case, the appellant was charged on an indictment containing two counts, a count for rape and a count for unlawful carnal knowledge. He was convicted on both counts and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment.

7 On appeal, the Court of Appeal of Jamaica, held that although the appellant was on the evidence, guilty technically, both of rape and carnal abuse, it...