Allen (Shawn) v R

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Judge: PANTON. J.A.
• Judgment Date: 20 March 2002
• Neutral Citation: JM 2002 CA 6
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2002] 3 JJC 2203
• Date: 20 March 2002

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BEFORE:

THE HON. MR. JUSTICE HARRISON, J.A THE HON. MR. JUSTICE LANGRIN, J.A THE HON. MR. JUSTICE PANTON, J.A

SHAWN ALLEN

V.

R.

Mrs. Jacqueline Samuels-Brown and Miss Thalia Maragh for the applicant

Miss Tricia Hutchinson, Crown Counsel, for the Crown

CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Defence of alibi - Application for fresh evidence to be adduced

PANTON. J.A.

1 The applicant was convicted in the Circuit Court Division of the Gun Court held at King Street, Kingston, on the 14 ^th December, 2000, of the offence of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a specification that he should serve nine years before becoming eligible for parole.

2 The prosecution alleged that the applicant, having had a dispute with the deceased some days earlier, shot and killed the deceased at about 1.30 a.m. on the 20 ^th April, 1999. The applicant raised an alibi in his defence. There were two witnesses who claimed to have been walking with the deceased at the time of the shooting. A report was made to the police that night, but a written statement was not recorded from these witnesses until the 28 ^th April, 1999. A very important point in the case was whether the civilian witnesses had, at the time of making the report, informed the police that the applicant was the man who shot the deceased.

3 At the hearing of an application for leave to appeal, we heard an application for fresh evidence to be adduced in the form of an entry in a book kept by the police.

4 In considering an application for the admission of fresh evidence, this Court is guided by the principles stated in R. v. Parks [1961] 3 All E.R. 633 at 634:

"First, the evidence that it is sought to call must be evidence which was not available at the trial. Secondly, and this goes without saying, it must be evidence relevant to the issues. Thirdly, it must be evidence which is credible evidence in the sense that it is well capable of belief; it is not for this court to decide whether it is to be believed or not, but it must be evidence which is capable of belief. Fourthly, the court will after considering that evidence go on to consider whether there might have been a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to the guilt of the appellant if that evidence had been given together with the other evidence at the trial".

5 These principles have been consistently applied by this Court. See, for example, Brian Bernal v. The Queen...