Hugh Smith Appellant v The Queen Respondent [ECSC]

JurisdictionCaribbean States
CourtEastern Caribbean Supreme Court
Judgment Date01 Mar 1973
Neutral Citation[1973] ECSC J0301-1
Docket NumberCriminal Appeal No. 1 of 1972
[1973] ECSC J0301-1



The Honourable the Ag. Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice St. Bernard

The Honourable Mr. Justice Louisy (Ag.)

Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1972

Hugh Smith
The Queen

C. Dennis Byron for appellant

Lee. L. Moore, Attorney General, for respondent

The judgment of the Court was delivered by —

The appellant was convicted of rape on the 4th October, 1972 and sentenced to five years imprisonment. Against that conviction and sentence he has appealed on four grounds. Before this Court, counsel for the appellant has abandoned grounds 2 and 3 and argued grounds one and four.


Ground one is as follows:

"That the learned trial judge erred in admitting evidence of incidents that had no relevance to the offence charged in the indictment being subsequent to and at a different locality from the offence charged in the said indictment and that the said evidence was prejudicial."


The other ground of appeal argued was that the sentence was excessive.


I will deal shortly with the facts of the case. On the 9th of August, 1972 about 7.30 p.m. the appellant was driving his motor car on the island main road where he met one Morlene Daniel. According to her evidence he forced her into the car and drove away with her. He went to a place called Lodge Project where there was dancing. She went outsideand the appellant followed saying, "since you crying come let me take you back up where I take you from." She went into the car and he took her to a lonely place called Ottley's Estate and there he raped her using a gun to force her to consent to sexual intercourse after several acts of indecency. He took her photograph while she was naked and forced her to commit several acts of indecency. Appellant took Morlene back to Lodge Project and as she was getting out he pulled her in and drove off with her and an unidentified man to another part of Ottley's Estate. Again at the point of a gun he forced her to have sexual intercourse with this unidentified man. After this incident she was taken back to the same club and later that night forced her into his car again, and took her to a place called Pond's Pasture. There he, the appellant held her down and forced her to have sexual intercourse with three other men whom he had taken also in the car. He said to them: "Brothers come and have your share of wife". Counsel for the appellant contended t hat there were three separate and distinct offences of rape on that night. The first offence was where he alone had sexual intercourse with her. The second offence was with the unindentified man and the third was where he invited the three men to have sexual intercourse and they did. The appellant was a party to all these offences.


Counsel submitted that the evidence of the two later offences was inadmissible as it related to other offences and the such evidence was not required to prove the offence...

To continue reading

Request your trial