R v Buckley

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Judge: Carey, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 06 March 1989
• Neutral Citation: JM 1989 CA 43
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1988
• Date: 06 March 1989

Court of Appeal

Carey, J.A.; Campbell, J.A.; Gordon, J.A. (Ag.)

Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1988

R

and

Buckley

Appearances:

Application for leave to appeal

Messrs. Kent Pantry & Hugh hildman for the Crown

Criminal law - Illegal possession of firearm — Robbery with aggravation — Convicted — Application for leave to appeal conviction and sentence — Issue one of credit — Whether motive of witness to frame applicant — Finding of ample evidence to support verdict — Application refused.

Carey, J.A.

1 In the High Court Division of the Gun Court held on the 6th of May, 1988, before; Clarke, J., this applicant was convicted for the offences of illegal possession of a firearm and robbery with aggravation. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of four years imprisonment at hard labour. He now applies for leave to appeal his conviction and sentence.

2 In this case, the facts need only be given in outline. Sometime in November 1987, Hr. Ephraim Afflick, who works at a bar in Duckenfield, St. Thomas, secured the bar and retired to bed. He got awake at his usual hour, namely, 4 o'clock in the morning, switched on the lights inside and outside and opened the doors. When he went out he was confronted by three men, two of whom were masked. The unmasked man he identified as being this applicant whom he knew for a considerable time before. The two masked men were armed with guns. They all entered the bar and they relieved the bar of money which had been left there. Mr. Afflick made a report and, of-course, reported the name of this unmasked man to the police. A warrant was issued for his arrest. Sometime after his arrest, Mr. Afflick wont to the police station and pointed out this applicant as being one of the intruders on the early morning of November.

3 Insofar as the evidence for identification went, there was lighting to which we have already adverted, the applicant and the intruders were quite close to each other, a matter of a yard apart, then they went into the bar and were there for some time engaged in the activity of robbing the bar. The defence was an alibi. The defence also suggested that there was some motive on the part of Mr. Afflick for framing the applicant.

4 The issue, therefore, was not truly one of identification. The question was one of credit, whether or not Mr. Afflick could be believed on his oath when he identified this man and whether there was any truth in the story about some animosity on...