Hall v R

CourtFederal Supreme Court (West Indies)
JudgeHallinan, C.J, Lewis, Marnon, JJ.A.
Judgment Date10 Dec 1959
JurisdictionCaribbean States

Federal Supreme Court

Hallinan, C.J, Lewis and Marnon, JJ.A.


H. A. Williams for Appellant

C. A. Burton, Attorney-General, for Respondent.

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction for assault with intent to prevent lawful apprehension — No statutory provisions which permit arrest for a misdemeanour which the appellant had reasonable cause to believe had been committed in his presence — Conviction set aside.

Judgment of the Court delivered by the Chief Justice:

The evidence of this case covers two incidents. In the first incident the policeman Lawrence went to arrest a man called Worrell, and the Crown alleged that the appellant assaulted the policeman Lawrence and thus enabled Worrell to escape. And, in the second incident the policeman Lawrence with other policemen, went, without warrant, to arrest the appellant for assaulting Lawrence in the execution of his duty, namely, on the occasion of the first incident.


The incident contained two counts — the first for assaulting P.C. Lawrence in the execution of his duty, and the second was for assaulting Lawrence with intent to prevent the lawful apprehension of Worrell. At the opening of the trial Counsel for the Crown stated that these counts referred to the first incident and were in the alternative; but considerable evidence about the second incident was led and at a later stage of the trial Counsel for the Crown informed the Court that the counts were not in the alternative but that the first count referred to the second incident and the second count referred to the first incident. That circumstance alone would make this trial unsatisfactory, and on this ground alone the conviction should be set aside.


But there is this further and other objection the jury found the appellant not guilty on the second count which referred to the first incident, and guilty on the first count which referred to the second incident. Now as the jury found the applicant not guilty on the first incident it must be assumed either that they though the constable had not got a lawful warrant to arrest Worrell and that Worrell and the appellant were justified in resisting the arrest o or, the jury may have considered that the constable Lawrence had a valid, warrant but that the appellant never assaulted Lawrence nor assisted Worrell to evade arrest.


We do not know what facts the jury founds but in either event the police constable Lawrence would not be justified in going with the two...

To continue reading

Request your trial