R v Patterson (Clovis)

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Judge: SMITH, J.A.:
• Judgment Date: 25 April 2007
• Neutral Citation: JM 2007 CA 15
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2007] 4 JJC 2003
• Date: 25 April 2007

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BEFORE:

THE HON. MR. JUSTICE HARRISON, P THE HON. MR. JUSTICE SMITH J.A THE HON. MRS. JUSTICE McCALLA J.A

R

v

CLOVIS PATTERSON

Delano Harrison, Q.C.

Tara Reid and Maxine Jackson,

CRIMINAL LAW - Illegal possession of firearm - Sentence varied on appeal

SMITH, J.A.:

1 On the 10 ^th March, 2004, Clovis Patterson, the appellant, was convicted in the High Court Division of the Gun Court of illegal possession of firearm and shooting with intent. He was sentenced by Straw J, to 13 years imprisonment on each count. The learned judge ordered that the sentences should run concurrently.

2 On the 25 ^th October, 2005, he was granted leave to appeal by the single judge. On 25 ^th April, 2006, we dismissed the appeal against conviction and promised to put our reasons in writing. This we now do.

3 The Prosecution's Case

4 Evidence for the prosecution was given by three police officers. Det. Constable Christopher Thompson testified that on the 26 ^th March, 2003, at about 9:30 p.m. consequent on a report, he, Constable Peart and District Constable Byfield proceeded in an unmarked service vehicle to Sligoville. The car was driven by Constable Peart. Det. Constable Thompson sat in the front passenger seat and Constable Byfield was in the back. On reaching a marl pit, Constable Thompson said that he saw the appellant and two other men walking together on the road. The appellant fitted the description he had earlier been given. The police vehicle passed these men, went around a corner, turned around and drove towards the men. The men were then to the right of the policemen. Constable Peart stopped the vehicle on the right side of the road about 12 feet from the three men. Constable Thompson stated that the appellant stooped as if he was adjusting his shoelace. The other two men turned their backs to the road. The light of the vehicle was on, he said, and a light from the verandah of the nearby house also assisted him in seeing the men. Constable Thompson alighted from the vehicle and shouted "Police, put your hands in the air". The men were about 12 feet from where he was. The two men with their backs to the road, spun around each with a gun in hand. He heard two explosions; he flung himself to the ground and fired at the men. The men ran in the direction of Bog Walk and were pursued by the police. Three more gunshot explosions were heard coming from the direction in which the men ran. Assistance from the Linstead Police Station was sought. The men escaped in the bushes. The police began to search in the bushes for the men. While searching Constable Thompson heard a sound and on investigation he saw the appellant lying on his back. Constable Thompson asked him his name. The appellant replied "Barrington Brown". The appellant, when asked, said he did not know the other two men. Constable Thompson observed that the appellant was bleeding from wounds to his buttocks and heel. He was taken to the Linstead Hospital and a report made to Detective Sgt. Wayne Jacobs.

5 Constable Stephen Peart also testified. He was the driver of the service vehicle. His evidence in the main, supports the evidence of Constable Thompson. He told the Court that when the men fired at them he took cover and returned the fire. Detective Sgt. Jacobs was attached to the Spanish Town Police Station. He told the Court that on the 20 ^th March, 2003, at about 11:00 p.m. he received a report by telephone from Det. Thompson. He went to the Linstead Police Station and from there to the Casualty Department of the Spanish Town Hospital. He saw the appellant there; his buttocks and right ankle were bandaged. Detective Jacobs identified himself to the appellant, cautioned him and asked him "what was wrong with him." The appellant replied that he was shot by some men. When asked if he knew the men who shot him, he said no. He gave his name as "Barrington Brown" and said he was also called "Hall". He gave his address as Two Rivers in Lawrence Tavern, St. Andrew. When asked how he got to the hospital he said he was taken there by men who said they were police. He said that he was shot on the Sligoville Road and that he was not alone at the time. Detective Sgt. Jacobs told him of the allegations made against him. When cautioned the appellant said "Officer me don't have any gun, sir a me friends them fire shot". Sgt. Jacobs then asked him who were the friends who fired the shots, his terse response was "After me nuh informer." The appellant was arrested and charged with illegal possession of firearm and shooting with intent. After he was cautioned he said " Officer me nuh have no gun. A mi friends them have." No-case submissions were made by Counsel for the appellant and were overruled by the learned trial judge.

6 The Defence

7 The appellant gave the following unsworn statements: "Coming from Bog Walk, Sligoville main road a vehicle pass me go up into a corner and turn come towards me and stop and said, "If I don't know that me fi dead long time, and fire one shot in my left buttock and one in my right ankle. After that I was standing in front of the vehicle then the officers them they took me on a dead end road and they asked me if I know a man by the name of Barry. They carry me to Linstead after and it is me draw out the shot out of my ankle and give him. The man by the name of Barry come up to the hospital and him and the officer were talking. They transfer me to Spanish Town Hospital. That is it".

8 Grounds of Appeal

9 Counsel for the appellant sought and obtained permission to argue the following supplemental grounds of appeal:

• (1) The learned trial judge erred in law in her failure to uphold the submission that there was no case for the appellant to answer as the prosecution had adduced no evidence of his having acted in concert with others in commission of the offences with which he was charged.

• (2) The verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.

• (3) The sentences were manifestly excessive.

10 Ground 1 - No Case Submission

11 Mr. Delano Harrison Q.C. submitted that there was no sufficient evidence of a common design, in which the appellant was involved, to shoot at or in...