John Junior Griffiths v R

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Judge: ‘Simmons, J.A.’
• Judgment Date: 31 July 2025
• Neutral Citation: JM 2025 CA 62
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: COA2021CR00079

John Junior Griffiths

and

R

Edwards, J.A.; Simmons, J.A.; Laing, J.A. (Ag.)

COA2021CR00079

Court of Appeal

Appearances:

Miss Tamika Harris for the appellant.

Miss Kathy-Ann Pyke and Miss Andrene Hutchinson for the respondent.

‘Simmons, J.A.’

1 On divers days between 24 November and 13 December 2021, the appellant, John Junior Griffiths, was tried in the High Court division of the Gun Court for the parish of St Elizabeth before Gayle, J. (the learned judge). The offences for which he was charged were illegal possession of a firearm and wounding with intent. He was convicted on all counts and, on 16 December 2021, he was sentenced on each count to 15 years' imprisonment at hard labour. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2 On 22 December 2021, the appellant filed an application to this court for leave to appeal the convictions and sentences, on the following grounds:

• “(a) The learned judge erred in deciding that the evidence of identification/recognition was of the quality/standard required, [and that the appellant] had a case to answer in the face of material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Crown's case.

• (b) The verdict was unreasonable, having regard to the state of the evidence on behalf of the Crown.

• (c) The sentence was manifestly excessive in the circumstances.”

3 On 1 December 2022, a single judge of this court refused his application for permission to appeal the convictions. He was, however, granted leave to appeal the sentence imposed for illegal possession of firearm as the learned judge failed to apply the appropriate methodology outlined in the Sentencing Guidelines for use by Judges of the Supreme Court of Jamaica and the Parish Courts, December 2017 (‘the Sentencing Guidelines’) and the cases of Meisha Clement v. R [2016] J.M.C.A. Crim. 26 (‘ Meisha Clement’) and Daniel Roulston v. R [2018] J.M.C.A. Crim. 20 (‘ Daniel Roulston’). The sentence imposed for wounding with intent was the minimum prescribed by section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act and, as such, leave was not granted to appeal that sentence.

4 The appellant has renewed his application for leave to appeal the convictions before this court, as is his right. At the hearing, counsel for the appellant sought and was granted leave to abandon the original grounds of appeal and to argue three supplemental grounds. They are as follows:

• “1. The learned trial judge misquoted the evidence.

• 2. The Learned Trial Judge erred by not himself recognising that the weakness of the identification evidence was such that [the appellant] ought not to have been called upon to answer the case against him. With this failure, [the appellant] was denied a real chance of acquittal.

• 3. The sentence is manifestly excessive.”

THE CASE AT THE TRIAL

A. THE PROSECUTION'S CASE

5 The evidence led by the prosecution was that, on 9 October 2020, at about 9:00 p.m., the complainant, Mr Jason Lawrence, was asleep at his home in the parish of St Elizabeth, when he was awakened by the sound of explosions. He got up and realised that he had been shot in the hand. He then looked outside through a space in the door of his board house and saw the appellant standing with a “high power” weapon in his hand. He said that it was about three feet long. At the time, the appellant was about 10 feet away. The appellant was known to him for several years, as he said, “we a little youth run up and down, a grow. We grow as little youth”. He would see him “more than five, six, seven, eight time” for the month. He was able to see the face of the appellant with the aid of an electric light that was situated on his sister's house at the front of the premises. He described it as “very bright”. The appellant, he said, was standing under the light. The witness said that he observed him for about two to three minutes.

6 The hole in the door through which the witness said he was able to see and identify the appellant was described as being about the size of one-half of a clothespin.

7 Detective Corporal Sherry-Ann Christian (‘Det Cpl Christian’), who visited the scene, gave evidence that she observed five live 7.62 cartridges and eight 7.62 casings at the scene. The bullets, she said, were all over the house and were used in AK-47 rifles. She also observed what appeared to be droplets of blood on the floor of the storage area of the complainant's board house. There were also droplets of what appeared to be blood on the bed and the floor of the bedroom area.

8 Where the lighting is concerned, the officer's evidence was that there was a light on a nearby house that lit up “the entire front area of [the complainant's] board house”. She also stated that there was a small hole to the right side of the house that was “big enough so that you could look through it from the inside to see on the outside, as well as on the outside to see on the inside”.

9 In cross-examination, she stated that the hole was about one to one-and-a-half inches wide. No mention was made in her statement of either the hole or the position of any lighting. She, however, stated that she had made the relevant notes in her notebook when she had visited the scene.

10 Detective Corporal Jeffrey Charlton (‘Det Cpl Charlton’), the investigating officer, stated that, on 10 October 2019, he went to the Black River Hospital, where he saw and spoke with the complainant. As a result, he had an interest in finding the appellant, who is also called ‘Tapau’. He visited the scene the next day and observed that there was a gap between two boards of the complainant's house. The gap, he said, was about four feet from the ground to the left of the door jamb when facing the door from the inside of the house.

11 When Det Cpl Charlton learned that the appellant had been taken into custody, he visited him at the Black River Police Station. He introduced himself to the appellant and informed him of the allegations made by the complainant. On caution, the appellant said that on the day in question, he was at the Kentucky Fried Chicken (‘KFC’) outlet in Mandeville.

12 In cross-examination, Det Cpl Charlton stated that he had not included his observations about the complainant's house in his statement. He, however, stated that he had made notes in his notebook. His evidence was that there was a gap between the ply board and the groove and tongue in a section of the wall of the complainant's house near the door. He confirmed that the complainant in his statement had said that the gap was in the door.

13 Dr Lawrence Junior Nalty, who examined the complainant, gave evidence that he had injuries to the base of his right little finger and his forearm. There were five wounds in total. He opined that the complainant's injuries were gunshot wounds, and some would cause permanent disfigurement and impairment.

B. THE APPELLANT'S CASE

14 The appellant gave sworn evidence and called two alibi witnesses and one character witness.

15 The appellant said that he was at the KFC outlet in Mandeville with three persons at the time of the incident and denied being involved. He gave their names as Den Den (Deneisha Dawson), George and Pinky. After they purchased their meals, he went to the home of Denisha Dawson, whom he said was his sister-in-law, at Comfort in Manchester. When he was asked why he was living in Mandeville at the time, he stated that in July 2019, the police had asked him to leave Brompton and stay in Mandeville. He said that he would visit St Elizabeth once per month to take money to his children. His evidence was that he would arrive in the parish between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and leave by 1: 00 or 2:00 p.m. He did not go to St Elizabeth in October and specifically denied being there at the time of the incident.

16 He recalled going to KFC at about 9:00 p.m. on the day in question. He also recalled how he was dressed. The appellant also gave evidence of how Deneisha, Pinky and George were dressed. He did not remember the amount of the bill as he was not the one who paid for it. When asked about his earnings for the work he did in October, he could not remember. He could not recall what he wore on the day when Inspector Higgins told him to leave Brompton. He did, however, recall how his sister was dressed.

17 The appellant denied being in the complainant's yard on the night of the incident and also denied being the person who shot the complainant. He could not remember what time the conversation with Inspector Higgins took place. He maintained that he was not in St Elizabeth that night and asserted that the complainant was lying.

DENEISHA DAWSON

18 The witness stated that the appellant is her brother-in-law and had been living with her and her family since July 2019. Ms Dawson indicated that the appellant was a construction worker. He was also a livestock farmer and would sometimes go to tend to his farm in Brompton on a Saturday.

19 Ms Dawson stated that on the night in question, she, the appellant and two other persons went to KFC at about 9:00 p.m. They were travelling by car, and the appellant was seated in the back on the right.

TAFECA THOMAS

20 Ms Thomas stated that she and the appellant have been in a relationship for about 15 or 16 years. He is the father of her children. Her evidence was that up to July 2019, the appellant lived at Brompton. She indicated that she was present when Inspector Higgins told the appellant to leave the area. Her evidence was that he would come to St Elizabeth and take money for the children. After he left in July, he returned in September and October. She stated that he would normally come on a weekday. When asked if she would find it strange if someone said that the appellant would go to his farm every weekend to tend to his cows and goats, she said that she was responsible for tending to the animals.

RENOD BROWN

21 Mr Brown testified that he has known the appellant since he was a...