Fox v R

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Court: Court of Appeal (Bahamas)
• Judge: Hall, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 15 April 1998
• Neutral Citation: BS 1998 CA 11
• Docket Number: No. 34 of 1997
• Date: 15 April 1998

Court of Appeal

Gonsalves-Sabola, P., Carey, J.A., Hall, J.A.

No. 34 of 1997

Fox

and

R.

Appearances:

Mr. Alonzo Lopez, Counsel, for the appellant.

MS. Cleopatra Christie, counsel for the respondent.

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction for armed robbery — Evidence — Whether the identity of the appellant was sufficiently proved on the evidence — Whether the trial judge erred in his summation Held: Finding by court that the identity of the appellant was sufficiently proved. There were instances of misdirection but on minor questions of fact. On the whole the summation was not one in which fault could be found. The appeal was without merit and was dismissed.

Hall, J.A.

1 The appellant was convicted of the armed robbery of Amanda Bain on the 2nd of October, 1995. The case for the prosecution was essentially that the victim, Amanda Bain, was collecting insurance premiums when she was approached by a man armed with a firearm who relieved her of her handbag containing cash and other personal items. She was unable to identify her assailant.

2 The prosecution called as a witness, Mr. Owen Cooper who was a neighbour of the home where Ms. Bain was collecting insurance premiums, and who, shortly after having heard the scream of a lady and observed a man whom he recognized to be the appellant, a person known to him generally, if not personally, as a resident of the neighbourhood for about five years, speeding away on a bicycle with a lady's handbag under his arm.

3 That was the prosecution's case on a thumbnail.

4 The appellant admitted to having been in the area, but for an innocent purpose. He admits that he was on a bicycle speeding, according to him, in another direction, having made certain purchases at a shop.

5 At the end of the day, therefore, the issue for the jury was a narrow question of fact as to whether Mr. Cooper was, having regard to the directions in the well-known case of R v. Turnbull (1976) 63 Cr App R 132, able to identify the appellant as the person whom he saw with a lady's handbag immediately after the event in question.

6 We have listened to counsel, who has wandered over the numerous grounds of appeal filed in his amended notice, in which he takes issue generally with the credibility of the case for the prosecution, but he has been, as we understand it, unable to indicate to us where the judge would have erred in his summing-up to the jury on the matters of fact or of law.

...