Francis Willie APPELLANT v The Queen RESPONDENT [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Caribbean States
• Judge: SATROHAN SINGH, JA,SATROHAN SINGH,Justice of Appeal,ALBERT REDHEAD,ODEL ADAMS,Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
• Judgment Date: 30 October 1997
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1997] ECSC J1030-1
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 2 OF 1997
• Court: Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
• Date: 30 October 1997

[1997] ECSC J1030-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Honourable Mr. Satrohan Singh Justice of Appeal

The Honourable Mr Albert Redhead Justice of Appeal

The Honourable Mr Odel Adams Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 2 OF 1997

Between:

Francis Willie

APPELLANT

and

The Queen

RESPONDENT

Appearances:

Mr. Marcus Peter Foster for the Appellant

Mr. Errol Walker, Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent

Criminal Law —Rules governing admissibility of a confession statement -Prosecution's evidence against accused consisting only of a confession statement -Circumstances prior to the confession statement being given, accepted as being highly suspicious —The Queen v. Thompson (1893) 2 QB 18 per Cave, J. adopted. Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside.

SATROHAN SINGH, JA

1 There were two issues raised in this appeal.

• 1. Whether or not the Police and Criminal Evidence Act [PACE] 1984 of England applied to St. Lucia.

• 2. The admissibility of the appellant's confession statement.

2 We do not propose to deal with the first issue at this time as it involves a serious change to the laws relating to the admissibility of confessions in St. Lucia and it has not been thoroughly ventilated before us. Mr. Marcus Foster for the appellant was not prepared to properly advance arguments before us and asked us to rely on the arguments he advanced before the Judge in the Court below. The learned Director of Public Prosecutions studiously avoided the issue.

THE CONFESSION

3 Regarding the second issue of the admissibility of the alleged confession of the appellant, we have been experiencing some very agonising moments.

4 The case for the prosecution was that the appellant, a co-accused who was armed with a knife and another, invaded the home of the deceased woman for the purpose of executing a robbery therein. She surprised them. The robber with the knife cut her on her finger and in his presence, the appellant used the flat side of a hammer twice on her head and left her bleeding on the floor. They robbed the house of a paltry sum of cash and a gun.

5 The appellant and the co-accused allegedly made confession statements. The case for the prosecution was that of a joint enterprise. At their trial they both objected to the admissibility of their statements on the ground that they were not voluntarily given. They alleged brutality on the part of the police. In the case of the appellant, partial drowning of his head in a pail of water on several occasions, starvation, violence and long detention.

6 Matthew J heard a Voir Dire as to the admissibility of the statements, found them to be freely and voluntarily given and admitted them in evidence. Then, for no apparent acceptable reason, withdrew the case of the co-accused from the jury and had him discharged. With respect to the appellant, the judge sent the matter to the jury who eventually convicted him of manslaughter.Matthew J then jailed him for 17 years. He was tried on an indictment for murder. The only evidence presented by the Crown against the appellant was his statement. This statement disclosed the offence of murder. Nothing else. Why the judge allowed the jury to consider manslaughter boggles the mind. However, in the appeal before us, Mr. Marcus Foster invited the Court to ask itself whether, given the circumstances of the confession, we do not feel a lurking doubt in our minds as to its voluntariness.

7 The law on the admissibility of a confession where it is the only evidence of the prosecution against the accused, is that its admission into evidence where there isobjection as to its admissibility, should be approached with extreme caution especially in cases where the confession might have been extracted from the accused under highly suspicious...