R v Chaplin, Malcolm & Grant

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Judge: Forte, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 16 July 1990
• Neutral Citation: JM 1990 CA 59
• Docket Number: Nos. 3 & 5 of 1989
• Date: 16 July 1990

Court of Appeal

Carey, J.A.; Forte, J.A.; Morgan, J.A.

Nos. 3 & 5 of 1989

Regina

and

Chaplin, Malcolm & Grant

Appearances:

Delroy Chuck for Chaplin

Dennis Daley for Grant

Chester Stamp for Malcolm

Kent Pantry for Crown

Criminal Practice and Procedure - Appeal against conviction — Murder — Appellant gave a statement under caution and which was admitted in evidence confirming his involvement in the murder — Whether the trial judge erred in fact and in law in inviting the jury to find that even if they rejected the caution statement of the applicant there was sufficient circumstantial evidence on the strength of which they could have convicted the appellant — Finding of the Court that there was a strong case against the appellant and that the trail judge directed the jury fairly and correctly on the law and on the issues raised — Sufficient evidence on which the jury could correctly have found that the appellant was present aiding and abetting the others in the act and therefore a participant in the common design to the murder — Appeals dismissed and convictions affirmed.

Forte, J.A.

1 The appellants were convicted of the murder of Vincent Myrie in the Saint James Circuit Court on the 15 ^th December, 1988 before Wolfe, J and a jury and sentenced to suffer death in the manner authorised by law.

2 On the 17th May, 1990, we granted the applicants leave to appeal and treated the applications as the hearing of the appeals. We dismissed the appeals and promised to put our reasons in writing. This we now do.

3 Myrie had been found dead on the 18th June, 1986 on a property on Childermuss adjoining the Lethe main road in the parish of Hanover. From the road to where the body was lying, the grass was scorched forming a path. At the side of the road, there was a burnt area, in which we found the remains of a burnt plastic container and a piece of steel. A post mortem examination done on the body 29 days later, revealed the following:–

• 1. The body was badly charred;

• 2. two penetrated stab wounds at the posterior left neck;

• 3. two parallel gaping lacerations at the back of the skull appearing like consecutive chops;

• 4. a stab wound to the posterior left shoulder;

4 In the doctor's opinion either the lacerations or the burning was sufficient to cause death. An instrument such as a knife could have caused the wounds to the posterior neck and shoulder and an object like a piece of iron (tendered as Exhibit 1) used with a great deal of force could have caused the injury to the skull. Because of the deterioration of the body and the burning no internal dissection was done.

5 The tale, which ended with the death of Myrie, began on the morning of the 18 ^th June, 1987, when about 7.00 a.m. the appellants Grant and Chaplin went to the home of one Vincent Mattison at Cascade in Hanover. Both men were known to Mattison before that morning. While Grant (Mattison's nephew) was in the kitchen, Chaplin enquired of Mattison whether he could hire Mattison's red pick-up on the following day, Friday. Mattison told him that he could not do so, as the pick-up would be used by the deceased to transport market people on that day. The appellant Chaplin, offered to pay $300 if Mattison would take the vehicle from the deceased and hire and hire it to him on that day, but this offer was also refused, because, as Mattison told Chaplin, the deceased was the regular driver of the pick-up and if he took it from him on that day he (the deceased) would lose money and might never want to drive it again. Chaplin however left with Grant saying that he would “put it to Shorey” (the deceased). Later that morning Sharon Wedderburn, on her way to Hopewell to sell mangoes, was given a “drive” in this red pick-up which she boarded at Johnson Town in Hanover. At this time the deceased was driving the pick-up with two men sitting in front whom she could not identify. In the back was the appellant Malcolm, whom she knew for 17 years. She sent in the back of the van, where, during the journey to Hopewell where she was let-off, she noticed a box with a piece of steel protruding from it.

6 The next time the pick-up was seen was at about 11.00 a.m. that same day on the Lethe main road. It was seen by a school girl, Shawnette Campbell, who first saw a plastic jug burning in the road and then saw the pick-up going in the direction of Lethe; it then turned and headed towards the Anchovy main road. At about 1.30 p.m., the pick-up was again seen at a gas station in Ramble with three men in it.

7 On the following day, the 19 ^th June, 1987 at about 3.30 p.m., the appellant Chaplin arrived at his aunt's house at Dunrobin in Mandeville in the company of the appellant Grant. They arrived there in the red pick-up owned by Mr. Mattison. In Grant's presence, Chaplin told her that he had got himself “mix up in a little trouble.” Asked what trouble, he told her that he had brought the pick-up and “they inform on him over here,” and he came to find out if she could put it up for him. He then introduced Grant to his aunt as a policeman, and it turned out she had to lend them money to get back to St. James. Asked when he would return for the van, Chaplin told her he would do so in three weeks. She then agreed to keep the van on her premises until he returned for it.

8 On the 3 ^rd July, 1987 the applicant Chaplin was accosted and searched by Detective Trail who found on him the papers connected to the van. Chaplin thereafter took the detective to Mandeville in Manchester where the pick-up was recovered from the home of his aunt.

9 On their arrest each applicant gave a statement. All admitted their presence at the time the deceased came to his death.

10 As the content of each statement is relevant to the submissions by counsel for the applicants, reference will be made thereto in dealing with these arguments where necessary.

1. Dennie Chaplin

Except for one minor point which was void of merit and which Mr. Chuck for this appellant eventually conceded, he quite correctly indicated that there was no argument which he could advance in his favour.

We agree entirely with counsel's approach, as there was an abundance of evidence upon which the jury could have come to its conclusion and no complaint could successfully be made in respect of the learned trial judge's summation. This appeal was accordingly dismissed.

2. Peter Grit — Ground 1

Mr. Daley for the appellant attacked the admission of the statement made by this appellant on the basis that at the time the statement was given, he had been detained for seven days without being told that he was charged for murder. This, however was a contention being mode for the first time, before us, and was never put forward by the appellant at the trial as the reason why he gave the statement. In fact his objection to its admissibility was founded an his allegation that he was taken from lock-ups by the police officers, taken in a car to a lonely road and beaten, after which, they fired a shot and forced him to swallow the spent shell or else be killed. In those circumstances he signed a statement which had already been written. In the face of a dental by the police officers of these allegations and their own testimony alleging the fairness and the voluntariness of the statement, the learned trial judge considered those opposing versions, and obviously rejecting the applicants account and accepting that of the police officers, admitted it. There was then never any detention by the appellant that his prior detention had any influence at all in his giving the statement, or signing a previously written statement.

11 We do not think in any event that his detention for 7 days without being told of the charge, could by itself constitute oppressive conduct.

12 In the circumstances we found no merit in this ground of appeal.

Ground 2

13 For convenience this ground of appeal is set out hereunder — “That the Learned Trial Judge erred in fact and in law in inviting the jury to find that even if they rejected the caution statement of the applicant there was sufficient...