Laquinton Dean v R

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Madam Justice Crane-Scott, JA
• Judgment Date: 13 December 2018
• Neutral Citation: BS 2018 CA 209
• Court: Court of Appeal (Bahamas)
• Docket Number: SCCrApp. No. 177 of 2016
• Date: 13 December 2018

COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Honourable Madam Justice Crane-Scott, JA

The Honourable Mr. Justice Jones, JA.

The Honourable Mr. Justice Evans, JA (Actg.)

SCCrApp. No. 177 of 2016

Between

Laquinton Dean

Appellant

and

Regina

Respondent

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Murrio Ducille with Ms. Latia Williams, Counsel for the Appellant

Ms. Cordell Frazier with Ms. Kristan Stubbs, Counsel for the Respondent

Andre Birbal v. Regina (No. 1) SCCrApp. No. 18 of 2011 considered

Andre Birbal v. Regina (No. 2) SCCrApp. No. 114 of 2014 considered

Andy Francis v. Regina SCCrApp No. 133 of 2009 mentioned

Beckford v. The Queen [1987] UKPC 1 applied

Ellis Taibo v. The Queen [1996] UKPC 68 considered

Jerome Bethel v. Regina SCCrApp No. 19 of 2013 mentioned

Kenyatta Leslie Lewis v. Attorney-General SCCrApp. No. 19 of 2014 mentioned

Michael Scott v. Regina SCCrApp. No. 163 of 2012 mentioned

Norman Shaw v. The Queen [2001] UKPC 26 applied

R v. Aziz [1996] AC 41 mentioned

R v. Cooper [1969] 1 QB 267 applied

R v. Dinnick (1909) Cr. App. R. 77 mentioned

R v. Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039 mentioned

R v. Gladstone Williams [1984] 78 Cr App R 276 mentioned

R v. Vye [1993] 1 WLR 47 mentioned

Teeluck v. State of Trinidad and Tobago [2005] 1 WLR 242 mentioned

Thompson (Eversley) v. The Queen [1988] AC 811 applied

Wallace and others v. The Queen [1996] UKPC 47 considered

Whitehorn v. R [1985] LRC (Crim) 249 mentioned

Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462 mentioned

Criminal appeal — Indictment for murder — Whether prima facie case of murder established at close of prosecution case — Conviction for manslaughter — Whether judge erred in leaving manslaughter for jury's consideration — Whether judge's direction on self-defence inadequate — Whether verdict unreasonable and unsupported by evidence — Whether conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory — Good character direction

Jermaine Black and three others left a construction site in Old Fort Bay on the 29 ^th March, 2014. They were heading to drop Black off to visit with his son. The driver of the vehicle, Bradshaw Gray, stopped at a convenience store in Yellow Elder and while there a scuffle broke out between Black and the appellant. During the scuffle Black was stabbed about the body and died as a result of his injuries. The Crown's case was that the appellant was the aggressor who stabbed Black once in his head and seven times in his torso. The appellant, on the other hand, opted to remain silent and called no witnesses. His Counsel, in his closing address, told the jury that the appellant had been set upon by Black and he acted purely out of self-defence.

Nevertheless, the appellant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment; that sentence was reduced to 13 years and 6 months imprisonment to give effect to the time he previously spent on remand.

He now appeals his conviction on the basis that inasmuch as self-defence arose on the evidence adduced in the Crown's case and could not be ruled out, an essential element of the Crown's case, namely the intention to kill, had not been established; further, the evidence at its highest did not establish that the killing was without lawful justification. That being the case, the judge ought to have dismissed the charge and discharged the appellant. He further submits that despite the Crown's failure to establish a prima facie case, and the judge's decision to allow the case to continue against the appellant, the learned judge wrongly directed the jury on manslaughter which, he said, did not arise. On the other hand, the respondent submitted that the Crown's evidence had established a prima facie case of murder. The Crown submitted that based on the number of sharp force injuries and the location of the injuries it could reasonably be presumed that the appellant intended to cause the deceased's death and the judge's directions could not be faulted.

The appellant further submits that the judge's directions on self-defence were in adequate. He submits that it is the subjective perception of the appellant which mattered not the facts as they actually were proved to be. The Crown submits that the judge's directions addressed the subjective perception of the appellant during the altercation with the deceased.

Another complaint of the appellant is that he did not get the benefit of a good character direction.

Held:

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.

In the Court's view the learned judge gave adequate directions in relation to the mens rea for murder. The learned judge also instructed the jury as to how they could determine whether the appellant had an intention to kill from the surrounding facts. In our view, the directions were clear and the jury in this case was not confused. Quite to the contrary, the Court is satisfied that by acquitting the appellant of murder and finding him guilty instead of manslaughter, the jury evidently found that the appellant either did not have the requisite mens rea for murder, or alternatively, had lost his self-control and acted under extreme provocation.

On the issue of self-defence the judge correctly directed the jury to consider firstly, whether the appellant honestly believed (even if mistakenly) that it was necessary to defend himself. In assisting the jury (as she was obliged to do) with the first question, she reminded them of the features of the evidence which had a direct bearing on whether the appellant's belief was honestly (even if mistakenly) held. The judge further directed the jury that if in their judgment the accused believed or may have believed (rightly or wrongly) that he had to defend himself against murder, manslaughter or grievous or dangerous harm and had done no more than what he honestly and instinctively felt was necessary to do, that would be very strong evidence that the amount of force used by him was reasonable. She further told them that if they found that the force used was unreasonable then the appellant could not have been acting in lawful self-defence and the harm caused would be unlawful; but if the force used was reasonable or they were in a reasonable doubt as to whether it was reasonable then the appellant would have acted in lawful self-defence and their verdict should be ‘not guilty’.

The fact that the appellant was of good character only emerged on the record following his conviction during the sentencing phase of the trial. As the appellant's good character was not distinctly raised on the evidence before the jury, the judge was under no duty to give a good character direction and the appellant therefore lost the benefit of the standard direction containing the credibility and propensity limbs. However, even if the jury had been given both limbs of the good character direction, we are satisfied that it would have made no difference to the jury's verdict.

Judgment delivered by The Honourable Madam Justice Crane-Scott, JA

Introduction

1 . The appellant was arraigned on the 1 ^st June, 2015 before Bethell J., and a jury on a voluntary bill of indictment which charged him with the 29 ^th March, 2014 murder of Jermaine Black. On the 6 ^th April, 2016, he was convicted, instead, of manslaughter and sentenced on the 28 ^th July, 2016 to an effective term of imprisonment of 13 years and 6 months, his remand time having been deducted from the sentence of 14 years which the judge imposed.

2 . He appealed his conviction in due time and subsequently filed an Amended Notice of Appeal on the 6 ^th February, 2018.

3 . On the 4 ^th October, 2018 we heard his appeal and reserved our decision.

The Amended Grounds of Appeal

4 . The Amended Notice of Appeal disclosed four (4) grounds as follows:

1. That the learned trial judge erred in law when she allowed the jury to consider a verdict relative to the charge of Manslaughter which was not before the Court and did not arise from the facts of the case;

2. The verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence;

3. The verdict is unsafe and unsatisfactory;

4. The learned trial judge erred when she failed to direct the jury on the Appellant's good character.

5 . Before considering the grounds, we set out the respective cases which were advanced for the prosecution and the defence at the trial.

The Crown's Case

6 . The Crown's case was constructed on the testimony of thirteen (13) witnesses who gave sworn evidence at the trial. The Crown also relied on two stipulated reports of another witness, Inspector Hanna, who conducted two identification parades on the 31 ^st March, 2014. Inspector Hanna's reports indicated that the parades were attended by the Crown's eye-witness, Bradshaw Gray and Denise Lewis respectively, who had each positively identified the appellant as the man responsible for killing the deceased.

7 . The Crown's main eye-witness was Bradshaw Gray who told the jury that on Saturday, the 29 ^th March, 2014 around 2:00 p.m. Jermaine Black (“the deceased”) along with his friends Gregory and Wilbert were in his vehicle. The four men had left a construction site in Old Fort Bay and were on their way to drop off the deceased to visit his son. Whilst on their way, Bradshaw Gray said he stopped his vehicle at a convenience store just off Graham Drive, Yellow Elder and got out to buy cigarettes.

8 . The deceased remained in the vehicle along with the other men. After purchasing the cigarettes, Bradshaw Gray returned to his vehicle at which point the deceased, who was still in the vehicle, called out to a woman inside the shop, saying in a low voice: “Yeah Peaches!” Peaches was the appellant's girlfriend who had at the time been sitting next to the appellant at a table inside the shop.

9 . According to Bradshaw Gray, after the deceased called out to Peaches, the appellant shouted out from inside the shop saying: “Carry y'all sissy...