Henry Culzac Appellant v R Respondent [ECSC]

JurisdictionCaribbean States
CourtEastern Caribbean Supreme Court
JudgeCECIL LEWIS, J. A.
Judgment Date26 Jan 1972
Neutral Citation[1972] ECSC J0126-1
Docket NumberCriminal Appeal No. 5 of 1971
[1972] ECSC J0126-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Honourable the Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice Cecil Lewis

The Honourable Mr. Justice St. Bernard

Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1971

Between:
Henry Culzac
Appellant
and
Regina
Respondent

E. Robertson for appellant

A.T. Warner, Q.C., Attorney General for Respondent

1

The judgment of the Court was delivered by—

CECIL LEWIS, J. A.
2

The appellant was convicted on the 11th day of November, 1971, of the offence of rape and sentenced to six years imprisonment with hard labour. Against this conviction he has appealed.

3

In the indictment it was alleged that he committed this offence on the 1st day of March 1969, at South Rivers, against the person of Venita Agard. Venita Agard lived at South Rivers at the relevant date with a man called Linton Fraser as her common law husband. She was at home alone and went to bed at 7.15 that night. At 8.15 she felt someone lifting her nightie. She opened her eyes and saw it was the accused. She jumped up and cried out. The accused asked her why she was crying out. He told her that he "wanted wife" from her tonight and asked her if she would agree. She said "no". He thereupon pulled down his pants, took out his private parts and had sexual relations with her. This was done without her consent. Previous to doing this he had asked her where was Linton Fraser and she had told him he had gone to Mr. Grant's shop.

4

After the accused was finished he left and went away and Venita Agard came outside. At that time she was looking for her common law husband. She did not find him immediately but when she eventually did she told him what had happened and they both went to the Police Station where Ventia Agard made a report.

5

The nightgown in which she was sleeping that night was handed to the police and it was found on examination by a laboratory technician on the 30th of April, that is, a little less than two months after the alleged incident to be heavily stained with spermatozoa and blood.

6

In his evidence at the trial the appellant said he was met next morning by two policemen when he went to the river to fish. They were sergeant Bacchus and Corporal Delves. They told him they wanted him and he went with them. They took his pants, shirt, hat and shoes and carried him to the police station, where they charged him with the offence. He said he knew nothing about Venita Agard and denied going to her house on the night in question.

7

Two important...

To continue reading

Request your trial