Roxbury v R
| Jurisdiction | Bahamas |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Bahamas) |
| Judge | George, J.A. |
| Judgment Date | 23 January 1998 |
| Neutral Citation | BS 1998 CA 9 |
| Docket Number | No. 88 of 1996 |
| Date | 23 January 1998 |
Court of Appeal
George, J.A., Zacca, J.A., Carey, J.A.
No. 88 of 1996
Philip E. Davis, Esq., along with Ian Cargill, Esq., Counsel for the appellant.
Wellington E. Olander, Esq., along with Andrew D. Forbes, Esq., counsel for the respondent.
Practice and procedure - Directions to the jury — Admissibility of identification evidence — Whether trial judge erred in his directions to the jury on the issue of identification in case where appellant was convicted and sentenced to seven years for house breaking — Whether the trial judge erred in failing to inform the jury about the length of observation. Held: Finding by court that this was not a Turnbull situation but the importance of the judge directing the jury as to the importance of identification even in the context of recognition was recognised and was done by the judge. The fact that the judge failed to inform the jury in the length of observation was not fatal to the case. From 50 feet away the witness might not have been able to see appellant's scar but his features were clearly visible. There was no merit to be found in the ground that inadmissible evidence had been admitted. The jury had been appropriately informed that it was a question of circumstantial evidence and not any question of direct evidence of seeing the entering and stealing. The court would be remiss to accede to a plea for reduced sentence given the 14 previous convictions of the appellant most of which are for house breaking and stealing. Appeal dismissed.
I think from the dialogue between the Bench and Mr. Davis, it is obvious that this appeal must be dismissed.
On the 29th of December, 1995, it was 11:30 a.m., Jason Knowles was riding his bicycle outside the house of the virtual complainants, Alan Wells and his wife, and he saw at one of Wells' windows someone whom he knew before; to wit, the prisoner.
It struck him as strange that the prisoner would be at the window, and he thought the worst but he rode on. The Wellses came home about 5:30 that afternoon and they found the window of their home sprained, some louvers broken and a screen was also broken.
On entering the house, they discovered a chain was missing, a lady's wedding band and two gold charms. Needless to say, the police were informed and they commenced their investigation.
The following day they got into contact with I Knowles, who told them what he saw and...
To continue reading
Request your trial