R v Solan
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | P. Cundall, J. |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 1963 |
| Neutral Citation | JM 1963 CA 3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Jamaica) |
| Date | 24 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Appeal No.50 of 1963 |
Court of Appeal
Cundall, P. Lewis, J.; Henriques, J.
Criminal Appeal No.50 of 1963
Mr.C.L, Leiba for the appellant.
Mr.F.M.G.Phipps for the Crown.
Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction — Murder
The appellant was convicted on the 15 th March, 1963, of the murder on the 7 th day of July, 1962 of Francella Gibson. Against this conviction, he has sought leave to appeal.
On the 27 th May, 1963, this court refused leave to appeal in this case and we now give our reasons for that decision.
The facts as disclosed by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses can be briefly stated. They follow a tragically familiar pattern.
The appellant and the deceased woman lived together as man and wife at Rowlandsfield in St.Thomas. They frequently quarrelled and fought and finally parted.
On the 7 th day of July, 1962, some eight days after they had separated, a visiting team came from the neighbouring parish of Portland to play a dominoes match against the district of Rowlandsfield and that evening a dance was held in celebration of this event. The deceased was there dancing with one of the supporters of the visiting team, and the accused was also there, standing up in the dance hall; he objected to her so dancing and told her to stop. The deceased resented his interference, told him to leave her alone and went on dancing. Shortly afterwards there was an interval and the music stopped. The appellant went and purchased an ice cream which he shared with the deceased andwhen the music started again they danced together.
The reconciliation appears to have been short lived because not long afterwards witnesses outside heard the sound of a disturbance coming from inside the dance hall and the appellant and deceased came out wrestling with each other. No evidence was adduced either by the prosecution or by the defence to indicate the cause of this scuffle. As they came out the appellant was seen to strike the deceased with his fist and she fell to the ground. A number of persons held the appellant and told him to behave himself but as soon as they released him he made off rapidly in the direction of his home some fifteen chains away leaving the deceased, who had regained her feet, standing outside the dance hall.
Not long afterwards the appellant was seen returning; from the direction of his home and walking rapidly towards the dance hall. He was now carrying a machette. One Vincent Halter tried to stop him but the appellant flashed his machette at him and Baker gave way.
The deceased saw the appellant approaching. She ran and the appellant chased her. She sheltered behind one Leonard Clarke holding him around his waist. The appellant came up and said to Clarke “Move from there. I don't want to chop you.” The deceased ran and sheltered in a similar way behind one Aston Cousins holding him around his waist. The appellant came up, stood in front of Cousins waving the machette saying “Move”.Cousins was trying to shield the deceased behind him but the appellant continued to brandish the machette saying “You don't hear me say to move.” He then struck Cousins on the right knee with the flat of the machette; whereupon Cousins saying “Wait, old man, don't bother, chop me” pushed the deceased from behind him and moved away.
As Cousins moved away the appellant attacked the deceased with his machette inflicting two deep wounds on the front of her chest, another across her back and a fourth less severe on the back of her left leg.
The deceased fell dying in the water table while the appellant walked away still carrying the machette.
The appellant was next seen about an hour later when he went to the home of Inez Watson who lives about half a mile from the dance hall with her husband and eight children.
The appellant entered the bedroom where Mrs. Watson and her children were and started wielding the machette. According to Mrs.Watson, who must have undergone a most alarming experience, the appellant was chopping at her and at her children but none of them was injured though one chop from the machette landed on the partition of the bedroom.Mrs. Watson tackled the appellant and during the struggle he dropped his machette on the verandah end left.Mrs.Watson picket: up the machette and later handed it over to the police.
The appellant then went into hiding and did not emerge until the morning of the 9 th July when he surrendered himself to a property ranger named Septimus Watson. Watson handed him over to the police. On arrest and caution the appellant said “A woman up there name Thompson, ah she ah sorry ah never catch fih chop up, for she carry news to mih woman.” The police were unable to say who was the woman Thompson to whom the appellant referred.
At the trial the circumstances of the killing of the deceased were not disputed. The defence was that of diminished responsibility. Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to establish this defence by calling three witnesses who testified to the appellant's behaviour since he had received a blow on his forehead. The appellant did not himself give evidence nor did he make an unsworn statement.
At the conclusion of the case for the defence Dr.Cooke, the Senior Medical Officer in charge of the Bellevue hospital, who had examined the appellant on two occasions, was called by the prosecution with a view to rebutting the suggestion, for the evidence amounted to no more than a suggestion, that the appellant was suffering fro diminished responsibility.
Dr. Cooke was examined by Crown counsel and cross-examined by counsel for the defence. Up to this stage the questions put to Dr. Cooke were substantially enquiries as to whether or not the appellant was suffering from any form of mental disorder or abnormality of mind. The Doctor had not been asked either in examination in chief or cross-examination specific...
To continue reading
Request your trial