Janet Douglas v R
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | Sinclair-Haynes JA |
| Judgment Date | 16 February 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | JM 2018 CA 57 |
| Docket Number | SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 22/2011 |
| Year | 2018 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Jamaica) |
[2018] JMCA Crim 7
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
THE HON Mr Justice Brooks JA
THE HON Mrs Justice Sinclair-Haynes JA
THE HON Miss Justice P Williams JA
SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 22/2011
Mr Robert Fletcher for the appellant
Miss Kathy Pyke and Mrs Taneshia Evans Gibbons for the Crown
The lifeless body of Isolyn McGill, also called ‘Iso’, was found on the Hillyfield Road in the parish of Clarendon with 18 wounds to her upper body, nine of which were stab wounds to her lungs, heart, pulmonary artery and abdominal cavity. An open ratchet knife with blood stains on the handle and blade was found 15 yards from the deceased.
The appellant, Janet Douglas, a married woman with whom Sergeant Glen McGill (then Constable) the deceased's husband had an affair, was convicted for the second time on 11 March 2011 for her murder. This was after a trial which lasted from 31 January 2011 through 21 February 2011 and 11 March 2011. The evidence against her was entirely circumstantial. Cole-Smith J sentenced her to life imprisonment and she was required to serve 40 years before becoming eligible for parole.
On 21 April 2014, the appellant's application for leave to appeal her conviction and sentence were considered by a single judge who refused leave to appeal against her conviction but granted leave to appeal sentence. Before this court, the appellant renewed her application for leave to appeal her conviction.
Three grounds of appeal were originally filed by the appellant. On 21 June 2016, three supplemental grounds of appeal were filed on her behalf. At the hearing of the appeal, counsel Mr Robert Fletcher abandoned the original grounds filed by the appellant and was granted leave to argue grounds one and three of the supplemental grounds.
Her complaint at ground one was that:
“The learned trial judge failed in an otherwise exhaustive summation to adequately distill [sic] and isolate the facts from which the jury may have drawn their inferences leading to guilt and those facts which may have led them to a contrary view. The absence of this assistance denied the applicant/appellant the fairest possible consideration of her case.”
At ground three she complained that:
“The sentence is manifestly excessive.”
The nature of the evidence requires that it be outlined in some detail.
In March 2000, approximately five years after his marriage to the deceased, Sergeant McGill, who was then a constable of police, met the appellant at the Half Way Tree Police Station. Consequently, on a report made to that police station by the appellant, in which she alleged that her house had been burgled and that she was assaulted, Sergeant McGill became a member of the team which investigated the matter.
Someone was subsequently arrested and charged for the offences of burglary and assault with intent to rob. The matter was placed before the court but attempts to contact the appellant proved futile. The appellant eventually contacted Sergeant McGill by way of telephone and enquired about the status of the case. She thereafter telephoned him regularly to tell him about strange sounds she said she heard in her yard which caused her to become fearful. She invited him to her house and he went “to check her premises”. He also caused other police personnel to visit her home regularly to ensure her safety. They consequently developed a “good, cordial relationship”.
In October 2000, he received a call from the appellant who told him that she was afraid because she had heard strange sounds. He spent the night at her house ensuring her safety. She telephoned some days after and again complained of being afraid because of hearing noises. He spent the night at her house and a sexual relationship developed. Thereafter he slept at her house twice or thrice weekly. This led to him lying to his wife that he had extra duties to perform.
It was Sergeant McGill's evidence that he told the appellant that he resided with his girlfriend Isolyn and their daughter. She declared her love for him and became “very very upset” whenever he expressed a desire to visit his family in Clarendon. She cursed and cried and said, “Weh yuh a guh dung fa, dem a gi yuh nothing, look weh mi ah gi yuh”. She told him to leave Isolyn. She was also concerned about him having to travel to Clarendon on public transportation.
Sometime late in October 2000, whilst Sergeant McGill was at the appellant's house, she informed him that she was pregnant. She showed him a pregnancy kit which indicated that she was pregnant. She appeared to be delighted but he was shocked. Upon being told by him of his intention to go home, she flew in rage and cried. She consequently suffered an attack of asthma. After the appellant was treated, he left her and went home.
Whilst he was at home, Mr Barrington Dookan (also called Breda), his friend, telephoned him. He went to Mr Dookan's home and spoke to the appellant via the telephone. She demanded that he return to Kingston and threatened to tell his wife about the pregnancy if he refused. He told her he would return to Kingston the following morning and ended the conversation.
Sergeant McGill further testified that at about 9:30 that night the appellant arrived at his gate in a beige 626 Mazda motor car with Derrick, a friend of the appellant. He, his father and his friends, Dookan and Omar Facey, went to her. He introduced the appellant to his father.
The appellant was determined to tell Isolyn that she was pregnant “and mash up everything and mash up his life”. He confessed that Isolyn was his wife; and weeping, he beseeched her not to do as she had threatened. She told him that she knew he was married. His father, Peter McGill, pleaded with her. She told him that she would not, only on condition that he returned to Kingston with her.
They drove away from his gate to Breda's where he told his father about the affair. He consequently told his wife that there was an emergency which required his return to Kingston and went to the appellant's home.
All night the appellant cursed and insisted that he should leave his wife. She asked him if he believed that he would “come into her house, use her, get her pregnant and expect to live happy with [his wife]”. He spent that night and the two following nights with her.
She lent him her Mazda motor car to travel to Clarendon on condition that he ended the relationship with his wife. He promised to try. He returned to Kingston on Monday and stayed at the appellant's house for “about three or so days”.
The following Sunday he took his wife, child and father to Mocho to visit family. He returned to the appellant's house on Monday following, where he remained for about three days. She subsequently telephoned him and told him that Breda told her that he had taken his family to Mocho. She accused him of having had sex with his wife in the car. She cursed him loudly and told him that she had telephoned his wife and told her about their relationship and her pregnancy.
On 9 November 2000 his daughter celebrated a birthday. The appellant drove him to his home so he could see his daughter. He testified that he was only able to run inside and hand his daughter a present and wish her “happy birthday”.
Sometime between 10 and 12 November 2000 the appellant telephoned him. She cursed loudly and told him that she had telephoned his wife using Breda's telephone and informed her about their relationship and her pregnancy and had invited her to Half Tree Police Station where they met.
Although he was displeased, the appellant picked him up that night and he went to her house. Throughout the period he remained there, the appellant cursed him and cried about him not wanting to leave his wife. He remained there Friday and Saturday and left Sunday morning because she suffered an asthma attack.
On the Sunday morning, the appellant's friend Derrick drove Sergeant McGill home in her car. He discussed the matter with his wife and accepted responsibility for the appellant's pregnancy. They agreed that it was their desire that that their marriage should work.
The Monday following, he returned to the appellant's home to retrieve material for a course he was pursuing. He informed the appellant that he had reconciled with his wife and he would not return to her house because the relationship was over. He also returned the things she had purchased for him.
On 16 November 2000, the appellant drove him to her house for him to receive a telephone call. He never received the call. She beseeched him to remain but he refused. She wept and suffered another asthma attack which caused him to administer her “pump”. She, he said, uttered the following words, “So you and [your wife] happy you think a me alone a guh get hurt?” He left her and went home.
Because of his wife's entreaties, on or about 17 or 18 November 2000, he eventually capitulated and provided her with the appellant's telephone number. Surprisingly, the appellant and his wife became friends and spoke regularly on the telephone.
On 23 November 2000 at the Half-Way-Tree Police Station, the appellant told him that she had gone to Mineral Heights earlier that night to collect a prescription from her aunt's husband. She also went to his house and told his wife about the pregnancy and apologised to her “about the whole incident”.
The appellant told him that she had arranged for his wife and daughter to visit her on the weekend in Kingston because she had identified a house in Kingston for his family. She would pay the six months rent in advance and he would repay her. She also told him that she had offered to get his wife a job. Sergeant McGill said he expressed to the appellant his discomfort with the arrangement,...
To continue reading
Request your trial