R v Morrison

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Judge: Rowe, P.
• Judgment Date: 24 September 1990
• Neutral Citation: JM 1990 CA 73
• Docket Number: No. 134 of 1989
• Date: 24 September 1990

Court of Appeal

Rowe, P.; Forte, J.A.; Gordon, J.A. (Ag.)

No. 134 of 1989

Regina

and

Morrison

Appearances:

Leslie Cousins for applicant

Miss P. Williams for Crown

Criminal Practice and Procedure - Application for leave to appeal conviction and sentence — Rape — Applicant admitted to the girl's mother that he had sexual intercourse with her — Applicant challenged that he could be the probable father of the child — Applicant was sentenced to serve a term of ten years imprisonment at hard labour — Finding of the court that in the circumstances there was evidence which was capable of amounting to powerful corroboration — Appeal against conviction failed — A sentence of ten years hard labour was out of line with the sentences which were being imposed for this very serious offence — Application for leave to appeal against this sentence was granted.

Rowe, P.

1 This is a case in which the applicant Lowell Morrison was convicted in the St. Catherine circuit court for rape, the particulars being that he on a date in April of 1988, had sexual intercourse with a girl then about the age of ten years of age without her consent. He was sentenced to serve a term of ten years imprisonment at hard labour.

2 Mr. Cousins filed and has referred to some five grounds of appeal. He has said that:

• (1) The Verdict of the Jury is against the weight of the evidence and contrary to Law;

• (2) That the indictment preferred against the accused was wrong in Law as at the time of the offence the Amending Law raising the age of consent to 18 years had not been passed;

• (3) That because of the considerable time which elapsed between the purported commission of the offence and the mother's discovery of the complainant's condition, evidence of the complainant elicited by questions put by the girl's mother was inadmissible and ought not to have been presented to Jury;

• (4) That the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive;

• (5) That evidence prejudicial to the accused was wrongly admitted.

3 For the Crown the case is a very very simple one. On a day in April, said the complainant, she lived in the same compound as did the applicant and while her parents were away from home and her blind grand-parent was the only adult around, the applicant asked her to go to the shop to purchase cigarettes for him. Upon her return he held her, drew her into his room and had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter she said she felt her...