R v Senior (Peter) and Clayton Bryan
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | K. HARRISON J.A : |
| Judgment Date | 11 March 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | JM 2005 CA 10 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2005] 3 JJC 1106 |
| Date | 11 March 2005 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Jamaica) |
CRIMINAL LAW - Wounding
On the 26 th June 2003, after a trial by jury presided over by Beckford, J in the Trelawny Circuit Court sitting in Duncans, the appellants Peter Senior and Clayton Bryan were both convicted of the crime of Wounding with Intent. Following their conviction, the appellant Peter Senior was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of fifteen years at hard labour on count 1 and nine years at hard labour on count 2. The appellant Clayton Bryan was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of nine years at hard labour on count 1 and twelve years at hard labour on count 2. The sentences in respect of each appellant were ordered to run concurrently.
On October 12, 2004 we dismissed their appeals, affirmed the convictions and sentences and ordered that the sentences should commence as from September 26, 2003. We promised then to put the reasons for our decision in writing at a later date and now do so.
The case for the prosecution
The case for the prosecution was that on the 9 th September 2002, at about 9:30 p.m. Barrington Watson and David Laing were riding their pedal cycles slowly along Brunt Hill Road, Trelawny. Clifton Barrett was walking between the two cycles and when they got to a street light, they saw six men coming from the opposite direction. Three of the men were walking ahead of the others. The witness Watson said, he was only able to identify three of them, namely, Peter Senior, Andrew Peete and Clayton Bryan. These three were walking together "side by side". The men, according to Watson "opened the road for them to ride through" and as he reached to where Senior was, Senior swung a machete at his left hand. He held out his left hand to block the blow and felt something sting him in the hand. He dropped his bicycle and whilst he was balancing himself, Senior came and chopped him again on the left shoulder. He was about to get up and Senior said to him:
"Boy mi wi kill you ennoh".
Watson said he ran off to a nearby gully and went under a tree. He felt his hands burning him and when he looked he saw that his left hand was chopped off. He was also bleeding at the shoulder. Before he ran off he had seen Clayton Bryan chop David Laing.
David Laing who also testified at the trial said as he rode towards the men they parted and he rode through. As he was passing them, the appellant Clayton Bryan chopped him on his right shoulder. He got off his cycle, ran into the bushes and whilst he was in the bushes he heard Barrington Watson shouting to him that Senior had chopped off his hand.
Clifton Barrett testified that he saw the appellant Senior use a machete and "chop off Watson's hand" which fell to the ground. He also saw the appellant Bryan chop David Laing on his shoulder.
Both Watson and Laing reported the incident to the police at Ulster Spring Police Station. The appellants were subsequently apprehended and charged with the offences of wounding with intent.
The Defence
In his defence, the appellant Peter Senior made a statement from the dock in the course of which he said he was walking along the road and on reaching a point in the dark, someone started to throw stones and bottles at him. He could not see anyone. He was hit on one of his sneakers and this caused a cut on his big toe. He saw when a man ran out of the bushes, cursed a bad word, and say:
"Boy, fowl wha feed a yard nuh hard fi ketch".
He stooped down because of the injury to his toe and heard this man calling to another man in the bushes. He heard when Broady (Clifton Barrett) say:
"Come meck we beat the boy and tie him up and lef him a road side".
Barrett ran down on him and began pulling him but he got away from him. Whilst he was pulling away, he said his hand caught one of the men at a very vulnerable spot and this caused the man to drop a machete that he had in his hand. He picked up the machete and as the other man came down towards him he made a chop in the dark and ran. He said he was unable to say whom he had chopped. He recalled however, that he swung the machete and made a chop.
The appellant Clayton Bryan's defence was one of an alibi. He testified that he was walking along Brunt Hill Road at about 7:45 pm on 9 th September, 2002. He was alone, and he saw David Laing and two other persons approach him. Laing accused him of "dissing" his friend Kathy and chopped at him with a machete. He said he was chopped on the little finger and he ran off. He made a report to the police at Ulster Spring Police Station and from there he went to Falmouth Hospital where he was treated for the injury he received on his little finger. He denied cutting Laing on his shoulder. He also denied that he was in the company of five other men on the night of the incident.
The Grounds of Appeal
Before us, Miss Reid was granted leave to argue a number of supplemental grounds of appeal. The original grounds of appeal were abandoned.
The identification issue
Peter Senior
Ground 1 of the Supplemental Grounds
1. The learned trial judge omitted to direct the jury that the quality of the lighting could have impacted on the ability of the prosecution witnesses to see and therefore would affect the quality of their evidence in regard to the whole incident as well as identification.
In the alternative, the learned trial judge failed to point out what were weaknesses in the identification evidence and to analyze them and their likely effect.
Ground 1 of the Addendum to Supplemental Ground
1. The learned trial judge's directions on inconsistencies and discrepancies were inadequate, in that, she failed to assist the jury by relating the law to the evidence and how such matters were to be approached. This failure amounted to a non-direction which prejudiced the Claimant/Appellant's defence.
Clayton Brvan
Grounds 2 and 3 of the Supplemental Grounds
2. The learned trial judge failed to give adequate directions on the law of identification, in that, she failed to point out that even in recognition cases witnesses have been known to make mistakes in the identification of close friends and relatives.
3. The learned trial judge's directions on inconsistencies and discrepancies were inadequate, in that, she failed to assist the jury by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ernie Williams v R
...circumstances of this case there need not have been any direction in relation to mistake and she cited passages from Regina v Peter Senior and Clayton Bryan SCCA No 133/2003 a judgment of this court delivered on 11 March 2005. She made particular reference to page 14 of that judgment which ......