The Queen Claimant v Ricardo Alexander Defendant

• Jurisdiction: Caribbean States
• Judge: Persad, J
• Judgment Date: 21 March 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] ECSC J0321-5
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2013] ECSC J0321-2
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. GDAHCV 2012/0043
• Court: Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
• Date: 21 March 2013

[2013] ECSC J0321-5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA

AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES

CLAIM NO. GDAHCV 2012/0043

Between:

The Queen

Claimant

and

Ricardo Alexander

Defendant

Appearances:

Mr. Andre Thomas for the Defendant

Mr. Howard Pinnock, Crown Counsel for the Claimant

Persad, J

1 This case raises several important issues in relation to the defendant's plea of guilty and the extent to which the court has a power on its own motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and enter a plea of not guilty in cases where the evidence on depositions does not support the plea.

2 The defendant in this matter was charged on the 13 ^th August 2011 with the offence of manslaughter. The particulars of the offence being that Ricardo Alexander on Saturday, 13 ^th August 2011 did commit manslaughter by causing the death of Len Roberts by unlawful harm.

3 This charge was laid pursuant to section 232 of the Grenada Criminal Code. Having been charged the defendant was committed to the High Court and the Director of Public Prosecutions indicted Mr. Alexander on the charge of manslaughter.

4 Before the High Court, the defendant indicated his willingness to plead guilty to the charge of manslaughter, the facts having been read, mitigation was received on his behalf. The Prosecution in outlining the facts of the case provided the court with the following summary:—

The now deceased Len Roberts was 57 years old residing at River Sallee in the parish of St. Patrick's. The now convicted man who is 27 years old also hails from the same village.

On Saturday 6 ^th August 2011, sometime in the morning, Len Roberts was walking in River Sallee with a container in his hand. The convicted man asked him for a phone call but Len Roberts told him that he had no credit.

The convicted man started to wrestle with him and tripped him causing him to fall on his back on the concrete road. Len Roberts was found seven (7) days later lying motionless on his verandah. Dr. Trevor Friday, the District Medical Officer for St. Patrick's was called and on arrival pronounced the body dead.

Dr. Nicholas Redhead performed the post mortem on the 15 ^th August 2011 and noted the following:—

• 1. On external examination, multiple superficial bruises were noted to the back of the head and on the upper arms.

• 2. On internal examination, the vessels around the brain were filled with blood and there was haemorrhage and swelling on the medulla oblongata (brain stem).

• 3. The cause of death was increased intra-cranial pressure; that is, pressure inside the brain contributed to by brain stem haemorrhage.

• 4. This internal pressure/damage was caused by trauma to the back of the head by a blunt instrument or by the head knocking against a wall or solid object.

D/C #163 John arrested and charged Ricardo Alexander on the 16 ^th August 2011 for manslaughter. He has been in custody since.

5 Having heard the matters raised in mitigation by counsel for the defendant the court reserved its decision to consider the submissions. Having had an opportunity to review the evidence on depositions, the court invited counsel to assist the court on a number of matters. Firstly, the court asked counsel for the Prosecution to identify the material on the Prosecution's case that implicated the defendant in the commission of the offence.

6 In particular, the court drew to the attention of Crown Counsel the following matters:—

• 1. That it appeared on the Prosecution's case that the cause of death was due to injury to the head of the deceased sustained on the 6 ^th August 2013 that caused damage to his skull;

• 2. That none of the witnesses to the event on the 6 ^th August 2011 that the Prosecution relied on to make their case testified that deceased hit his head when he fell; that the evidence at the highest amounted to seeing the accused and the deceased wrestling and the deceased fell on his back. Neither witness gave evidence of seeing the deceased hitting his head on the 6 ^th August 2011.

• 3. It is not disputed that the deceased after he fell on the ground on his back got up and walked away. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was alive and only found dead at his home some seven days later. On the date in which he was found lying on the ground on his back in his veranda there is evidence coming from a relative that on the morning of his body being found he was fine and had a conversation earlier with the relative.

• 4. Having regard to the manner in which the body was found seven days after the incident, was the Prosecution in a position to establish that the injury to the deceased's head was not as a result of an injury sustained by the deceased when he collapsed in his verandah.

7 Further, there was also on deposition evidence of the brother of the deceased of a conversation with his brother (the deceased) which happened some time after the incident of 6 ^th August 2011. According to the brother of the deceased, he was told that the deceased had hit his head earlier that day.

8 The court raised the question of the admissibility of such a statement, particularly having regard it was a classic example of an out of court statement being made by a person who was not being called as a witness and which was being tended for its truth as opposed to the fact it was said. Counsel was invited also to assist the court as to whether such a statement was admissible under any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.

9 The matter was adjourned for the parties to consider the issues raised and on the return date counsel for the Prosecution indicated to the court that he was in agreement with the matters raised by the court, in terms of the nexus between the evidence on depositions and the evidence necessary to establish prima facie guilt of the accused. Specifically on the issue of the hearsay evidence, Crown Counsel accepted that such evidence is not admissible by virtue of any of the exceptions under the hearsay rule.

10 This having been accepted, the question for the court's determination was how should the court approach the guilty plea presently before it. There was no doubt that the plea was entered into voluntarily. However, it was entered into on the basis that the evidence of the conversation between the brother of the deceased and the deceased was admissible.

11 It was generally accepted by all the parties that the appropriate course to be adopted would be to withdraw the plea of guilty and to enter a plea of not guilty and allow the Prosecution an opportunity to assess its future approach to the case. The issue of course was whether the court was at liberty to withdraw the plea of guilty in the particular circumstances of this case.

The Law relating to Guilty Pleas

12 A useful summary of the principles relating to a plea of guilty is to be found at paragraph D12.65 et seq of Blackstone Criminal Practice and Procedure 2011. The following principles can be extracted:—

• 1. Generally a plea of guilty can only be entertained if it is made by the accused personally. If counsel purports to plead guilty on behalf of an accused, the purported plea has no validity and the proceedings constitute a mistrial.

• 2. As to the effect of Plea of Guilty once the accused pleads guilty, the Prosecution are released from their obligation to prove the case. There is no need to empanel a jury, and the accused stands convicted simply by virtue of the word that has come from his own mouth. The only evidence the prosecution then need call in the ordinary case is that of the accused's antecedents and criminal record (see D19.45 to D19.51).

• 3. Where an accused wishes to change his plea from not guilty to guilty (see D12.87), this causes little difficulty. Where, however, he seeks to change his plea from guilty to not guilty (see D12.88) more difficult considerations arise, not least because such a change represents an assertion that an accused has realised that he did not commit the offence after all. The considerations in this category also include issues as to whether a plea was ambiguous (see D12.93) or involuntary (see D12.94).

• 4. The judge may allow the accused to change his plea from not guilty to guilty at any stage prior to the jury returning their verdict. The procedure is that the defence ask for the indictment to be put again...