Roy Petlrs Appellant v The Queen Respondent [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Caribbean States
• Judge: DAVIS. C.J.,CHIEF JUSTICE
• Judgment Date: 25 January 1977
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1977] ECSC J0125-1
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 9 of 1976
• Court: Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
• Date: 25 January 1977

[1977] ECSC J0125-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon. Sir Maurice Davis, Q.C. — Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice St. Bernard

The Honourable Mr. Justice Peterkin

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 9 of 1976

Between:

Roy Petlrs

Appellant

and

The Queen

Respondent

Appearances: Mr. Squires for Appellant

Mr. E.John for Respondent

DAVIS. C.J. delivered the Judgment of the Court:

1 This is an appeal against conviction and sentence by leave of a single judge. The appellant was tried on an indictment containing three counts. The first for house-breaking for the purpose of executing a felony to do with stealing. The second count was for stealing from a dwelling house one mattress and two pillows the property of John George, and the third count was for receiving the said articles knowing the same to have been stolen.

2 After a trial lasting two days the jury found the appellant guilty on the first and second counts and were discharged from returning a verdict on the third count. He was sentenced on the first count to four years imprisonment and on the second to three years imprisonment both sentences to run concurrently.

3 He complains against his conviction on the following grounds.

4 (1) that the verdict of the jury should be set aside as being unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence and (2) that the indictment is bad on the face of it in that it laid the offences as having been committed between Friday the 12th and Saturday the 13th March, which discloses no existing date or dates. The third ground of appeal is against sentence and that ground has been abandoned.

5 The case for the crown is to be found in the testimony of John George, Pamela Collier and Peter Williams and that case is this. On the 12th March, 1976, John George closed up his dwelling house at Soubise in the parish of St. Andrews, and in that house he left a mattress and two pillows on his bed. I suppose there must have been other furniture in the house. He said that he secured his house properly and that when he returned on the 13th, at one time he said 13th and then he corrected himself to 14th, but when he returned he found his mattress and two pillows missing. He went upstairs and noticed that the window which was made of wood leading to the bed room was slammed in but that the bolt was bent and it appeared to him that it was forced. He made a report to the police and on the morning of the 22^nd March, between 5. 30 and 6.00 a.m. he accompanied the police to the home of the accused. The police knocked at the door of the house of the accused got no answer and left. The man George remained nearby in the field and while there he said he saw the accused and his woman, Pamela removing a mattress from the kitchen.

6 It appears that he then got in touch with the police who returned, and the police witness said that he saw Pamela and George with the mattress and upon seeing him they both ran. On the 22^nd March, the appellant was arrested and charged with the offences to which I have alluded.

7 Now, in his defence the appellant made a statement from the dock. As there seems to be some misunderstanding as to the value of such a statement let me say at once that a statement made from the dock has never been considered to be evidence. It could never be taken to prove anything which has not been proved before. It is material in the case which the jury must consider as by so doing it may throw a different light upon the case for the prosecution. That is the value of a statement. But in that statement as I understand it, the appellant is saying that the mattress and the two pillows belonged to him because he bought them from a man named Joseph Roberts, that he bought the mattress and pillows along with two chairs and a stove and that he paid a total sum of $95. I think his statement went a bit beyond that because he is saying that on this day when you said you saw me running away I was elsewhere, I went fishing, so we have him saying two things (1) that the articles belonged to him and (2) it is...