Oneil Sheckleford v R
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | Foster-Pusey JA |
| Judgment Date | 14 July 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | JM 2023 CA 91 |
| Docket Number | SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 6/2017 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Jamaica) |
[2023] JMCA Crim 31
THE HON Mrs Justice Mcdonald-Bishop JA
THE HON Miss Justice Straw JA
THE HON Mrs Justice Foster-Pusey JA
SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 6/2017
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
Criminal Law — Murder — Directions — Whether the learned trial judge failed to give adequate accomplice directions — Whether the learned trial judge failed to give appropriate directions on improper motive — Whether the learned trial judge adequately directed the jury on drawing of inferences — Whether the verdict was unreasonable — Whether the learned trial judge erred by introducing an irrelevant consideration
Constitutional Law — Delay — Whether the applicant's constitutional right to have his conviction and sentence reviewed by a superior court within a reasonable time breached — Constitution of Jamaica — Section 16
Isat Buchanan for the applicant
Miss Ashtelle Steele and Miss Tashell Powell for the Crown
On 7 December 2016, the applicant, Oneil Sheckleford, was convicted of murdering Rochelle Chin, after a trial before Beswick J (‘the learned trial judge’), sitting with a jury. On 13 January 2017, the learned trial judge sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment with the stipulation that he should serve 20 years' imprisonment before being eligible for parole.
The applicant applied for leave to appeal his conviction and sentence. A single judge refused the application on 16 March 2021.
As is his right, the applicant renewed his application. We heard the application on 31 October 2022 and 1 and 24 November 2022, and reserved our decision.
The main witness for the prosecution was Jermaine Channer, a cousin of the applicant. He testified that the applicant asked him to accompany him to Junction to check “Billy Boy” (o/c Dwayne Powell) and said he wanted to “page” Billy Boy's girlfriend. Sometime in the evening of 25 July 2011, the applicant picked him up in Manchester and they travelled together in the applicant's vehicle to Junction in the parish of Saint Elizabeth. On their arrival in Junction, they drove into a little lane. The applicant borrowed Mr Channer's telephone and went somewhere behind the motor vehicle. A few minutes later, Mr Channer heard gunshot explosions from a direction behind the motor vehicle. He eventually drove the motor vehicle towards a hill where he saw people converging. The applicant returned to the motor vehicle wearing a pullover, and with a gun in his hand. He told Mr Channer that he had lost Mr Channer's telephone.
On the return journey, he heard the applicant discussing with someone on a cellular telephone that he had done something for the person for a lesser price than usual. He also heard the applicant asking someone to look for a telephone which he had dropped in the bush. Mr Channer's telephone and the telephone of Rochelle Chin were found in the vicinity of Miss Chin's body. Miss Chin's mother, who had come upon her body, handed the telephones over to the police. Mr Channer asked a female friend to say that his telephone really belonged to her and that she had lost it at a dance in Junction. He said he did this to protect the applicant and the applicant's friend “Billy Boy”. The telephones were entered as exhibits in the trial. Mr Channer was, at one point, charged with murder, illegal possession of firearm and illegal possession of ammunition in relation to the incident. He was, however, relieved of these charges and, instead, pleaded guilty to misprision of a felony for having failed to report a crime.
The applicant made an unsworn statement. He stated that Mr Channer, his cousin, had always been involved in a lot of trouble with the law, and had even gone to prison. He had never been close to or friends with him.
The applicant stated that he did not know anything about any gun or any murder that was committed. He and Mr Channer had not travelled to Saint Elizabeth; he had never held or owned a gun in his life. He had nothing to do with Miss Chin's death and believed that Mr Channer was blaming him for the murder in order to save himself.
Mr Isat Buchanan, on behalf of the applicant, sought and was granted permission to abandon the original grounds of appeal and to, instead, argue the following supplemental grounds:
“ Ground 1 — The learned trial judge erred in failing to give the adequate and sufficient accomplice direction in all the circumstances of this case (pages 494–501).
Ground 2 — The learned trial judge failed to give appropriate and sufficient directions to the jury in relation to the fact that the evidence of the sole eyewitness may have been tainted by improper motives. There was a need for sufficient warning in light of evidence from a co-accused/prison informant. The omission of the necessary steps from the summing up was in itself such a fundamental defect to deprive the Applicant of the hallmarks of a fair trial.
Ground 3 — The learned trial [sic] failed to direct the jury adequately, or at all, with respect to the drawing of inferences. The judge failed to give a proper summary of the defence's case to match that which she had given of the prosecution's case thus depriving the applicant of the tenants of a fair trial in this respect.
Ground 4 — The verdict is unreasonable having regard [sic] the evidence.
Ground 5 — The judge erred when she introduced irrelevant consideration before the jury by saying ‘the [Applicant] has not said why his cousin would put the murder on him’. This has the effect of subtly putting a burden of proof on the accused in relation to this matter. Her reminders of the prosecution's duty to prove his guilt would not be sufficient to cure the unfairness occasioned by her comment.
Ground 6 — The applicant's constitutional right to have his conviction and sentence reviewed by a superior court within a reasonable time has been breached by the effluxion of time. This has prejudiced his ability to extract and rely on fresh evidence at the appeal hearing eleven (11) years after the material incident.”
The issues that arise in this matter are as follows:
-
i. Whether the learned trial judge erred in law in her directions to the jury regarding the evidence of a potential accomplice (Ground 1);
-
ii. Whether the learned trial judge erred in law in her directions to the jury in respect of evidence given for improper motives (Ground 2);
-
iii. Whether the learned trial judge adequately directed the jury on the drawing of inferences (Ground 3);
-
iv. Whether the learned trial judge made a balanced summary of the case for the defence (Ground 3);
-
v. Whether the verdict is unreasonable having regard to the evidence (Ground 4);
-
vi. Whether the learned trial judge erred by introducing an irrelevant consideration and putting a burden of proof on the applicant (Ground 5); and
-
vii. Whether the applicant's constitutional right to have his conviction and sentence reviewed by a superior court within a reasonable time has been breached (Ground 6).
Mr Buchanan submitted that the learned trial judge erred when she failed to explain to the jury who was an accomplice and, further, failed to state definitively that Mr Channer was an accomplice. Counsel also complained that the learned trial judge failed to highlight that the evidence that Mr Channer gave was inherently dangerous and required a “special straining exercise”, especially in light of the fact that the case was dependent on circumstantial evidence. He relied on R v Barry Alexander Beck [1982] 1 WLR 461.
Miss Ashtelle Steele, on behalf of the Crown, referred to Pasmore Millings and Andre Ennis v R [2021] JMCA Crim 6 and Lawrence Brown v R [2016] JMCA Crim 33 that outlined the duty of a trial judge where there is evidence on which a jury could find that a witness was an accomplice. Counsel submitted that, in such circumstances, the judge should direct the jury that if they consider the witness was an accomplice, it is dangerous to convict on the evidence unless it is corroborated, however, the jury could still do so if they believe the witness. Miss Steele referred to the directions given by the learned trial judge and submitted that she discharged her function as required by the law. Counsel emphasized that the learned trial judge described who was an accomplice when she stated that it was a person “participating in the crime” and she would have erred if she stated definitively that the witness was an accomplice, as this was a matter for the jury to determine.
Mr Buchanan's submissions on this point are not on good ground. In Lawrence Brown v R, Edwards JA (Ag) (as she then was) stated at para. [26]:
“Where there is evidence on which a jury properly directed could find that the witness was an accomplice, the judge should warn the jury that, if, on the evidence, they consider that the witness was an accomplice, it is dangerous to convict on that evidence unless it is corroborated, even though they may do so, if after considering the warning, they believe the witness nevertheless.”
In the case at bar, the learned trial judge reminded the jury that, according to the evidence, at one time it could even have been said that the police considered Mr Channer as an accomplice of the applicant “participating in the crime” (see page 835 of the summation). The learned trial judge then stated at pages 835–836:
“… The evidence is that it was at the time, … when the police considered him to be participating in the crime that he gave them a statement and that he gave a question and answer interview, which formed the basis of the charge against this man.
So...
To continue reading
Request your trial