Ernie Williams v R

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: PANTON P
• Judgment Date: 10 June 2011
• Neutral Citation: JM 2011 CA 54
• Docket Number: SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 1/2009
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Date: 10 June 2011

[2011] JMCA Crim 37

JAMAICA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BEFORE:

THE HON MR JUSTICE PANTON P

THE HON MR JUSTICE DUKHARAN JA

THE HON MR JUSTICE HIBBERT JA (AG)

SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 1/2009

ERNIE WILLIAMS

and

R

Norman Godfrey for the applicant

Mrs Lisa Palmer-Hamilton and Greg Walcolm for the Crown

CRIMINAL LAW - Wounding with intent -Self-defence - Excessive sentence

1 ORAL JUDGMENT

PANTON P

2 [1] The applicant Ernie Williams was convicted before Mr Justice McIntosh and a jury sitting in the Circuit Court for the parish of Saint Elizabeth held at Black River on 1 December 2008. The offence for which he was convicted was wounding with intent, the particulars being that he, on 11 September 2007, in the parish of Saint Elizabeth wounded Rannie Williams with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. The sentence imposed on him was one of seven years imprisonment at hard labour.

3 [2] The circumstances giving rise to this conviction have been narrated by both the prosecution and the defence. The prosecution has stated that this was a case in which the complainant Rannie Williams is the brother of the applicant. There was a dispute between them in relation to damage to a motor vehicle. There was a discussion between them on the day in question which resulted in the complainant being infuriated and he proceeded to damage agricultural produce belonging to the applicant. Thereupon, the applicant pulled his cutlass and went in the direction of the complainant. Their father called out to him and he turned back. The complainant then put down his cutlass and was walking away when he was stabbed in the back by the applicant. The complainant fell to the ground and the applicant continued to stab him. The applicant was using one of their mother's kitchen knives. The evidence from the doctor presented at the trial indicated that there had been four stab wounds to the back of the complainant.

4 [3] The applicant gave evidence at the trial and in his evidence he said that he was a higgler, and on the date in question he had returned from purchasing supplies for his trade when he was confronted by the complainant who threatened to kill him and their parents. At that moment the complainant was armed with a machete advancing towards the applicant. According to the applicant, he ran and sought refuge in a storeroom belonging to their father. The complainant at that time proceeded to chop supplies owned by the applicant who was observing this activity through holes in the building in which he was. Having destroyed the supplies, the complainant still armed with the machete, according to the applicant, raised same and threatened to kill their father who was by then outside the building. According to the applicant, out of fear for the safety of his father, he rushed outside and used a small knife that he had and stabbed the complainant to the back. He said that out of this fear and nervousness, he might have stabbed the complainant more than once.

5 [4] The applicant filed grounds of appeal which alleged that the court had failed to recognize the fact that he had only acted in self defence after being attacked by the complainant. His grounds of appeal also complained that the sentence was harsh and excessive and could not be justified by the evidence as presented to the court. He also complained that the learned trial judge did not temper justice with mercy.

6 [5] Before us, Mr Norman Godfrey on behalf of the applicant sought and was granted leave to amend the grounds of appeal by adding the following grounds:

‘1. The Learned Trial Judge misdirected the jury when he failed to give them detailed, full and clear directions on the issue of self-defence, thereby depriving the Applicant a fair trial.

2. The Learned Trial Judge failed to aid the jury on how to assess the defence raised by the Applicant.

3. The Learned Trial Judge erred when he directed the jury to retire and deliberate at 4:18 p.m.

4. The verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence.’

7 [6] Prior to today's hearing the application was considered by a single judge of this court who granted leave to the applicant to apply out of time for permission to appeal. However, the single judge refused the application for leave to appeal and in doing so indicated that the main issues in the case were that of credibility and self defence. He formed the view that the learned trial judge had given adequate directions to the who by their verdict had rejected self-defence. The single judge concluded that sentence could not be said to be manifestly excessive.

8 [7] This morning, Mr Godfrey has stressed that one important element of defence of the applicant had been omitted by the learned trial judge and that is, even if the applicant was mistaken as to his belief as to the circumstances, he would still not be guilty. It was Mr Godfrey's complaint that the learned trial judge did not mention at all to the jury. He cited passages from the well-known case of Beckford v Queen (1987) 24 JLR 242. The passages...