Edwin Polin Defendant/Appellant v R Plaintiff/Respondent [ECSC]

JurisdictionCaribbean States
CourtEastern Caribbean Supreme Court
Judgment Date19 Sep 1972
Neutral Citation[1972] ECSC J0919-1
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No. 8 of 1972
[1972] ECSC J0919-1



The Honourable the Acting Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice St. Bernard

The Honourable Mr. Justice Bishop (Ag.)

Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1972

Edwin Polin

B. Frederick for Appellant

The Hon. Attorney General With Miss M. Joseph for Respondent

The judgment of the Court was delivered by—

This is an application to vary the refusal of a single judge to grant leave to the applicant to appeal against his conviction for housebreaking and larceny. We intimated at the start of the hearing of this application that we would allow counsel to argue the application and then treat it as an appeal.


At the beginning of the hearing of this application counsel asked leave of the Court to substitute four new grounds of appeal in place of those filed. These new grounds are that:

  • (1) The learned trial judge failed to leave the issue of identification to the jury.

  • (2) He failed to direct the jury on how to apply circumstantial evidence.

  • (3) He misdirected the jury on the doctrine of recent possession; and

  • (4) He misdirected the jury on the burden of proof.


The facts of the case are that on the 12th of April, 1971, Alice Griffith, a shopkeeper who lived at Buccament securedher shop at about 9.00 p.m. and left therein certain articles including a scale to the value of $64.00, ju-c beverages, cakes, scale weights, crocus bag, and a lady's watch. Later that same night, about 4.00 o'clock in the morning, two policemen, Selwyn Cumberbatch, Sgt. of Police and Erton Guy, Corporal of Police, were travelling to Vermont when they saw someone walking up the road with something in hand. They walked up to the person who was then stooping at the side of the road. Sgt. Comberberbatch switched on his flashlight and they were able to identify the person with the bag as the applicant. He dropped the bag and ran. They took the bag and later on that same day it was found that Alice Griffith's shop was broken into and the articles that were lost from the shop were the articles found in the bag which the applicant dropped when he ran. Griffith was able to identify the bag as here and she identified the lady's watch which was found in the bag as her own watch which she had left in the shop the evening before.


The accused defence was an alibi. He stated that he was not the person who was walking on that road. He said he left on the 12th April, 1971, and went to his sister and was playing some records, and drinking. He got drunk; his sister took him home where he was living and early in the morning while he was...

To continue reading

Request your trial