R v Elliott
Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
Judge | (O’Connor, C.J., Carberry and Cluer, JJ.) |
Judgment Date | 18 October 1952 |
Date | 18 October 1952 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Jamaica) |
(OConnor, C.J., Carberry and Cluer, JJ.)
N. Manley, Q.C. for the appellant;
L.B. Fox, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
(1) Hodges Case(1838), 2 Lew. C.C. 227; 168 E.R. 1136, dictum of Alderson, B. applied.
(2) R. v. Patch(1805), Surrey Spring Assizes (England), unreported, dictum of Macdonald, L.C.B. applied.
(3) R. v. Podmore(1930), Winchester Assizes (England), March 1930, unreported, dictum of Lord Hewart, C.J. applied.
Evidence-circumstantial evidence-probative value-conviction on circumstantial evidence alone only if evidence inconsistent with any other rational conclusion than guilt of accused-jury to be directed accordingly
The appellant was charged in the Grand Court with burglary and larceny.
It was alleged that the appellant had broken into and entered a dwelling house where she stole 85. The evidence against her was purely circumstantial but she was convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment with hard labour.
On appeal, she submitted that (a) the judge had failed to direct the jury as to when they could convict on the basis of purely circumstantial evidence; and (b) the conviction should be set aside since the evidence in this Case was not inconsistent with her innocence.
Held setting aside the conviction:
The trial judge should have directed the jury that they could only convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence if they were satisfied that it was inconsistent with any other rational conclusion than that she was guilty, and it appeared that he had failed to give such a direction. Consequently, the jurys verdict could not stand and, since neither the individual items of evidence nor the evidence as a whole established a case on the basis of which a reasonable jury, properly directed, could have convicted, the conviction would be set aside (page 10, line 19 page 11, line 6).
OCONNOR, C.J.: On October 16th, 1952 we allowed this | |
appeal, promising to deliver our reasons later. The following are | |
our reasons: | |
The appellant is a certified nurse and, during March 1952 and | |
5 | for about a year previously, was employed in a hospital in Grand |
Cayman. On June 9th, 1952, she was convicted of burglary and | |
larceny by the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands and sentenced | |
to 12 months imprisonment with hard labour. From that convic- | |
tion she appealed to this court. | |
10 | The charge against the appellant was that in the night of March |
30th, 1952, she |
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Henry v R
...Cases cited: (1) Brannan v. Peek, [1948] 1 K.B. 68; [1947] 2 All E.R. 572, observations of Lord Goddard, C.J. applied. (2) R. v. Elliott, 1952–79 CILR 9; (1952), 6 J.L.R. 173. Legislation construed: Misuse of Drugs Law, 1973 (Law 13 of 1973), s.3(1)(ii)(k): ‘Whoever without- (ii) being auth......