Roberts v R
| Jurisdiction | Barbados |
| Judge | Husbands, J.A.,Williams, J.A.,Worrell, J.A. |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 1985 |
| Neutral Citation | BB 1985 CA 11 |
| Docket Number | No. 10 of 1985 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Barbados) |
| Date | 07 June 1985 |
Supreme Court. Court of Appeal. Criminal Jurisdiction
Husbands, J.A.; Williams, J.A.; Worrell, J.A.
No. 10 of 1985
Mr. A. P. Shepherd for the appellant.
Mr. E.F. Belgrave, Q.C., and Mr. O. Springer for the respondent.
Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Wounding with intent. Whether the jury were adequately directed in respect of the situation which arose if they did not accept the evidence that the appellant was one of the men in the house where the crime took place and if they did not feel sure on the basis of the evidence of the police officers that he was a watchman for others who went inside the house — Court found on the basis of the statement which the appellant gave the police that the appellant was principal in the second degree to the offence of larceny because he assisted the other accused in the execution of a plan to go into the house and steal — Watching by itself could not support a conviction for an offence of wounding or wounding with intent committed inside the house — Nothing can be presumed against a person accused of a crime and something more than this would have to be shown — Court found that the jury were not properly directed in this matter and so the convictions for the offences of wounding and wounding with intent could not stand — Sentence for 5 years imprisonment for housebreaking to stand.
Practice and procedure - Trial by jury — Directions to jury. Applicant appealed against a conviction of wounding and of larceny — Whether there had been a breach of section 40(1) of the Juries Act, Cap. 115B — Whether the practice direction rules were breached since the directions as to the circumstances in which a majority verdict could be accepted were given within an hour not merely of the time the jury retired after being given further directions but also of the time when they initially retired — Court noted that practice directions are not mandatory and a breach thereof does not automatically vitiate a verdict — All the circumstances must be looked at — According to the adapted practice directions of the Court the jury should not be directed as to the circumstances in which the judge can accept a majority verdict before they had deliberated for an hour — Court held that this ground of appeal was not a basis for quashing the conviction.
On the 11 th of October, 1983 the appellant Roberts was convicted of housebreaking with intent to steal, wounding with intent and simple wounding. He was given a sentence of five years imprisonment for housebreaking, a consecutive sentence of ten years imprisonment for wounding with intent and a concurrent sentence of 3 years imprisonment for wounding.
The record discloses that on the 8 th of April, 1983 Michael Grove, his wife Molly, his two sons Dominic and Jonathan, his friends Maurice and Susie Clarke, and their daughter Emma arrived from England for a holiday in Barbados and took up residence at a three bedroom bungalow, “White Caps”, Mullins Beach, St. Peter.
On the 16 th of April, 1983 at about 7.10 p.m. the group left the bungalow to dine at the neighbouring Greensleeves Hotel, Michael Grove having previously secured the doors and windows of the house. His evidence is that they remained at Greensleeves until 8.45 p.m. when he and Dominic left to return to the bungalow. On their return Dominic opened the front door and father and son went into the hall, which was lit by a light that had been left burning when they set out for dinner. Dominic went into the second bedroom which he and Jonathan were sharing and found it in disarray Shortly afterwards the door to the first bedroom, the Clarkes', was suddenly opened and two men, armed with knives, appeared. A fierce struggle ensued, Dominic with the taller of the intruders and his father with the other. Michael and Dominic were both injured and the intruders escaped.
According to the medical evidence Michael had a 5 cm. gaping wound below the ribs on the left side and two lacerations on the right shoulder. His bleeding was controlled by bandaging. Dominic's injuries were potentially very serious. Part of his bowel protruded from a wound in his abdomen and he was given emergency treatment to control bleeding and the protrusion of the bowel. The medical opinion was that the wounds to each of the men were caused by a sharp instrument such as a knife.
Michael's evidence is that when the struggle was going on, the lights in the hall, Dominic's room and the Clarkes' room were burning and that most of the struggle took place below the light in the hall. Dominic's evidence is that when he entered the bungalow on their return from Greensleeves, the lights in the kitchen were on and so was the light in his bedroom which had been switched off when they set out for Greensleeves. He testified that he fought with the appellant who was the taller of the men. Michael's testimony is that their and the Clarkes' things were packed in bags as if “ready to go” and that the Clarkes missed a quantity of American dollars. Dominic's evidence is that a suitcase, which he had left, closed in a cupboard, was on the floor open with lots of clothes in it. Clothes were also on the bed.
Michael's evidence is that on the 19 th of April, 1983 he went to the St. Thomas Police Station where in the appellant's presence, he was shown a felt cap and a pair of shorts. The evidence is that neither Michael nor Dominic knew the appellant or had seen him before and that no identification parade was held. Both Michael and Dominic swore in court that the appellant was the intruder with whom Dominic struggled.
Police Officers gave evidence as to oral statements and a written confessional statement made by the appellant. Station Sergeant Layne testified that on the 19 th of April, 1983 he went on duty to the appellant's home and executed a search warrant. Nothing was found. He told the appellant that he was investigating a report by Michael Grove of Gibbs, St. Peter that two unknown men had broken and entered his dwelling house with intent to steal and seriously wounded him and his son Dominic Grove on the 16 th of April, 1983. Layne told the appellant that he was suspected to be one of men and cautioned him. The appellant said “I was watching and I ent went into the house but I going tell you what happen.” According to Layne the appellant made the following statement (Exhibit “C”) –
“Last Saturday night about ten past seven I left home and catch a bus on the Lower Road and I went by Jacobs to buy two five bags but Jacobs wasn't there so when I come back out I says I was going to do a little gaming but I change my mind. I walk up the road and I see a fellow name James who I does sometime call Livi and another fellow call Tosh. Livi call me Ike come let we go and do something. About 8 o'clock me and the two of them catch a bus and get off by the gas station after we pass Mama Leones. We walk back pass Mama Leones and went by a house and Livi tell me to watch. I watch and I see Livi and Tosh went in the house and then I see a white van went through the entrance to the house. About five minutes later I see Livi and Tosh run out with blood and powder pun them. Tosh run towards Speightstown and Livi and I run towards Bridgetown. A car came up behind me and I hear gunshots and I run towards the beach. I can't see Livi behind me and when I get by John Moore shop I see Livi. I ask Livi for Tosh but he said that he aint know where Tosh is. Livi then tell me that they butt up pun two people in the house and he pour a knife in a fellow and he think he kill a fellow. I walked up the road pun the above side and Livi walked up pun the below side. I tell Livi that the watchman is as good as the thief and I want something. Livi say that they aint get nothing so then we walk by a bridge in Mount Standfast and sit down. I tell Livi let we catch a bus but he tell me he wet and he smell raw. I then went by the canteen nearby and I tell a man I want a taxi but the man tell me he aint got neither taxi. I then went by Dennis that got the canteen and I tell he that I get a message that my mother sick. Livi and I then get in Dennis car and he drop we by the gas station in Paynes Bay and we went through the school line. Livi then tell me he lefting the area and he went long. I then went by St. John the Baptist School and sit down. I had on a brown shorts and a vest shirt with bars and a brown buff hat. The police went by me the next day but I aint tell them what happen because I didn't want to get myself in trouble.”
Layne went on to testify that the appellant took the police to his home at Durants Village, St. James and handed over articles of clothing which he said he had been wearing on the Saturday night; that he later directed them to the house “White Caps”, Gibbs, St. Peter and pointed it out to them saying that it was the house he was watching for Livi and Tosh; that later in the night he formally charged the appellant with breaking and entering the dwelling house of Michael Grove with intent to steal therein and cautioned him and the appellant did not say anything; and that he also charged him with wounding to which he replied “I aint wound nobody”.
The appellant testified in his defence that he did not take part in any of the offences with which he was charged and he never wounded anyone. He denied that he told the police that he watched any place. He said he was forced to sign the statement.
Thus the evidence was in summary, first, that of the Groves identifying the appellant as one of the men in the house, the armed man with whom Dominic struggled; second, that of the police officers to the effect that the appellant confessed that he had been the watchman for two other men who went into the house but that he had not wounded anyone and his statement disclosing no knowledge by him that either of the other men had a knife until...
To continue reading
Request your trial