Errol Smith Appellant v The Queen Respondent [ECSC]

JurisdictionCaribbean States
CourtEastern Caribbean Supreme Court
Judgment Date17 May 1972
Neutral Citation[1972] ECSC J0517-2
Docket NumberHigh Court Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1972
[1972] ECSC J0517-2



The Honourable the Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice Cecil Lewis

The Honourable Mr. Justice St. Bernard

High Court Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1972

Errol Smith
The Queen
The judgment of the court was delivered by –
Lewis. C.J.

The Court is indebted to Mr. Isaacs for the arguments which he has put forward in this case today, and, although some of his submissions have not met with favourable reception the Court nevertheless bears in mind that leave was granted to the appellant and that learned counsel quite readily accepted the Court's assignment to argue the case.


The appellant was convicted on the 18th February, 1972 of the offence of rape in respect of a young woman named Marie Mc Kie. It is not necessary to go into all the details of what was a rather unsavoury incident. The young woman said that she was going home carrying a bag with some bread in it and she felt a man, who turned out to be the appellant, hold her by the throat. He was wearing only a bathsuit and he pulled her into the bush, rather high lemon grass bush, threw her to the ground and had sexual intercourse with her twice against her consent. She was at the time having her period and the two panties which he, according to her evidence forcibly removedher body and the pad which she was wearing were all saturate with blood which the laboratory technician said might be menstrual blood.


When she came out of the bush she was seen by a witness, Jacqueline James, to be crying, her dress was rumpled, there were bits of grass in her hair and Jacqueline James inquired of her why she was crying. She then made a report to Jacqueline James about the incident which had occurred between herself and the appellant.


Subsequently, she made a report to a woman police who accompanied her back to the scene as well as another corporal of police, and one of the panties and the pad was found there.


Certain aspects of her conduct could be considered as somewhat unusual for a person who had been assaulted in the way that she says she was. For example, it was elicited from her in cross-examination that at one stage after she had dressed, there were people passing and that at the instance of the appellant she remained in the bush. It was also elicited from her that in the course of the scuffle or struggle whatever took place — she lost her watch and that the appellant looked for it and...

To continue reading

Request your trial