Phillips v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | Barbados |
| Judge | Williams, C.J.,Husbands, J.A.,Belgrave, J.A. |
| Judgment Date | 30 June 1989 |
| Neutral Citation | BB 1989 CA 4 |
| Docket Number | No. 45 of 1987 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Barbados) |
| Date | 30 June 1989 |
Court of Appeal
Williams, C.J.; Husbands, J.A.; Belgrave, J.A.
No. 45 of 1987
Mr. Cecil O. Tulloch, Q.C., Director of Public Prosecutions in association with Mr. O. Springer, Principal Crown Counsel.
Dr. Richard L. Cheltenham in association with Miss Elizabeth Thompson for the defendant.
Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Manslaughter.
Practice and procedure - Trial by jury — Direction to the jury — Defences — Manslaughter.
On November 11, 1987 Anderson Phillips, a 15 year old youth, was arraigned on a charge of murdering Woodroffe Clarke and pleaded not guilty. On November 19, 1987 he was found guilty of manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility and ordered to be detained in custody at the Government Industrial School until Her Majesty's Pleasure be known.
The incident took place during the 1987 Holetown Festival where Mr. Exley Roach had a variety of birds on display at one of the stalls. The record discloses that it began to rain in the evening of Saturday, February 21 and some of the birds were removed to a trailer that was covered by a tarpaulin. The appellant, who had been helping Roach during the day, sat on the trailer and sheltered. Clarke who was unsteady on his feet went to the peacock cage and was trying to pull feathers from a peacock's tail. The appellant went over to Clarke and told him not to interfere with the birds. Clarke became abusive. Shortly afterwards he was seen to be holding his chest and blood appeared. Clarke died later in the night from a stab wound to the chest. Counsel objected to the admission in evidence of oral and written statements made by the appellant to the police on the ground that the mind of the appellant “was and is suffering from a defect of understanding, that his will was overborne by immaturity resulting from arrested mental development and brain damage.” It was said that the product of such a mind could not be voluntary.
The learned trial judge held a voir dire at which two police officers and the appellant's grandmother testified for the Crown and Mr. Victor Forde, Clinical Psychologist attached to the Psychiatric Hospital, gave evidence for the appellant. The appellant did not go on the witness stand. The trial judge admitted the statements as voluntary and stated that he did not exercise his discretion to exclude them. He did not give reasons.
Counsel submits that the statements should have been excluded and criticises the learned judge for not giving his reasons for not excluding them. He refers to R. v. Stewart (1972) 56 Cr. App. R. 272, R. v. Kilner [1976] Crim. L.R. 740 and The Queen v. Williams [1959] N.Z.L.R. 502 and submits that this court should rule that the statements should not have been admitted and, on the basis that the statements were relied on by the Crown to prove that the appellant had killed Clarke, order a verdict of not guilty to be substituted for the verdict of guilty of manslaughter.
We do not think that the learned judge was under any duty to give reasons for refusing to exclude the statements nor do we think that any ground has been shown that would justify our interfering with his decision to allow the statements in evidence. As against the testimony of Mr. Forde there was that of the police and the appellant's grandmother as to the acts and words of the appellant as well as the facts that he had pleaded to the indictment and did not go on the witness stand and give the judge the opportunity to assess the level and extent of his understanding.
Moreover, it does not seem to us that the exclusion of the statements would have meant an end of the case against the appellant. We are of the view that there was ample evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that the appellant had killed Clarke. It is clear that at the relevant time he was in close proximity to Clarke. The following is a record of Leslie Leacock's testimony (at pp. 59, 60).
“The man (Clarke) was outside the barrier. The accused and I were inside the barrier. The man began to curse me. He then pushed me in the chest. I threw a punch at him. I can't recall if the punch catch him or not but 1 had a bangle on my hand and the bangle flew off. I turned and bent over to pick up the bangle. Accused was by the peacock cage. I was bent over about 2 minutes. When I turn around I saw the man holding his chest — the same man who was cursing me. He turned and walked away. The accused was standing above a big tree that was there. Accused was about 15 – 20 ft from me. I saw accused with a piece of brown paper in his hand. I saw the man had blood on his chest. If I saw the piece of brown paper I saw the accused with I would be able to recognise it by my initials [Exhibit B shown to witness]. This is the piece of brown paper I saw the accused holding.”
Exley Roach testified (p. 65 of the record):
“I heard loud voices — a commotion — I received a report and rushed to the area where the voices were coming from. I saw a lot of people. I saw the accused. He was the first person I saw. I saw him rubbed something in the ground that I did not recognise. Immediately after that I saw the accused push something in the right front of his pants waist but I did not recognise what it was. He raised his shirt to put the thing in his waist.”
The witness demonstrated what he saw:
“Vanroy Denny testified (p. 63 of the record): An item was pointed out to me. It was above Mr. Roach's trailer. I spoke to the Police. Later that night I took the Police to the site and pointed the item out to them. The item was something wrapped in tape at the Police Station. The Police took the item out of the sheath and I saw it was a knife. I put my initials on it. If I saw the sheath again I would be able to recognise it by my initials on it [Exhibit B shown to witness]. This is the sheath.”
Inspector Moore, who was a Station Sergeant at the time, testified that Denny made a statement to him and pointed out a knife which was on the ground alongside a tyre at the back of a trailer. The knife was in a card sheath which was taped. Moore took possession of the knife and sheath [Exhibits A and B respectively] and subsequently handed them over to Dr. Ramulu. Dr. Ramulu testified that the knife and the sheath both gave positive presumptive tests for blood and positive confirmatory tests for human blood. The evidence that the appellant killed Clarke was in our view strong and compelling.
Counsel seeks a complete acquittal on another ground which stems from the following passage in the summing up (at pp. 51, 52):
“Counsel for the accused contends that because of his lack of capacity on the one hand and even if you find that he had the capacity, because of his lack of ability to apply his intellect to the act, he did not have what in law is called the mens rea and therefore cannot be guilty of anything at all.
Well, Mr. Foreman and your Members, I'm not satisfied that I can direct you that that is a valid contention. As I have told you in relation to paragraph 1747 of Archbold, as to whether the defendant had the necessary intent for the crime of murder, in the case of Chard, the Court refused to admit the evidence of a psychiatrist to challenge this, and this refusal was upheld on appeal, and the learned authors there, think that case would apply to all cases where there was no evidence of insanity within the answers of the judges in the case of NcNaghten, known as the rules relating to insanity, or of (in the case of murder) diminished responsibility, and the words to my mind are of great importance: ‘without such evidence the presumption of insanity cannot be displaced.’
That means, I direct you, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial