R v Warren (Rhone)
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | FORTE, P: |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 2000 |
| Neutral Citation | JM 2000 CA 6 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2000] 2 JJC 2301 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Jamaica) |
| Date | 23 February 2000 |
CRIMINAL LAW - Manslaughter - Causing death by dangerous driving - Duress
The applicant having been indicted for the offence of manslaughter was tried and convicted in the St. Catherine Circuit Court on the 13 th April, 1999 for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment at hard labour, and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a period of two years. He now applies for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The application is granted and the hearing of the application treated as the hearing of the appeal.
The case for the prosecution was simple and uncomplicated. At about 9.00 a.m. on the 10 th June, 1997 two ladies were walking on the left hand side of the road going to their home in the village of James Mountain in the Sligoville district of Saint Catherine. As they walked, one of them, the witness Mavis Edwards heard the sound of a motor vehicle approaching. At this time the ladies were walking "one in front of the other." She looked back and saw a motor vehicle coming at "great speed". This caused both ladies to step off the road onto the bank. This, however, did not prevent the collision which took place thereafter. As they stood there "as far back as possible", the appellant, driving a Toyota Camry motor car, alleged by the witness to be going at a fast rate of speed, left the roadway, and hit both ladies, over the fence and into the yard beyond. After the collision, the appellant was seen to leave the car, and run away. Both ladies were taken to hospital, where the deceased succumbed to her injuries.
In his defence, the appellant stated on oath, that on the day of the incident, he was a timekeeper and supervisor of road-work being done between James Hill and Sligoville. There was another supervisor, Mr. Gayle and about 25–26 persons at the site. They were spreading "grit" in the road with the aid of a backhoe. He was sitting on the backhoe, when a white Toyota Corolla motor car drove up. Six men, each armed with a machete, alighted from the car, and were demanding work. They had a dispute with the other supervisor Mr. Gayle, and as a result chopped him. He accompanied Mr. Gayle and others to the police station where a complaint was made.
When he later returned to the site, the six men and the Toyota car were still there. He resumed sitting on the backhoe. While he was sitting there, the six men were approaching him with machetes. They were calling him police informer. In fear of his life he jumped off the backhoe, and jumped into a Camry motor car in which his brother was sitting. He drove off. The six men jumped into the Corolla motor car and started to chase him. He drove at 35 mph coming from Sligoville in the direction of where the incident occurred. He was coming down a hill, down James Mountain into a corner where there was gravel on the road. The car skidded and then collided with the ladies ending up with the left front wheel and the left back wheel in the bush. He ran away from the scene because "de man dem was coming at me." Asked why his motor vehicle ended up at the point where it did, the appellant answered:
"Di man dem chasing me and a wash in the loose."
He admitted that there were a lot of people in the square at the time of the collision, and that the ladies were not in the street, but maintained that he was travelling at 35 mph, and that the men were chasing him. Asked if the men chased him into the square, he answered that the car came right into the square, after his car, and that when he ran away, the men were still chasing him. Coincidentally, as it turned out the deceased was a relative of the appellant.
On this evidence, the appellant asked the jury to find that he drove as he did because of "duress of circumstances" i.e. the necessity arising because of the fear for his life, caused by the men with evil intent towards him, chasing him. Nevertheless, the jury convicted him, and before us he now complains of the failure of the learned trial judge to direct the jury in this area of his defence. The ground reads as follows:
"1. That the Learned Trial Judge failed to direct the Jury on the live issue of duress which is the main defence available to the applicant. Thus, even though adverting to the perceived threat to his life, viz:
'You see, basically what the defence is saying is that the accused was in such a state of mind, running for his life. that probably ordinary driving sense had departed from him.' ..." (Emphasis added)
Before getting into the merits of the complaint, it is necessary to examine the question raised in response by Mrs. McDonald-Bishop, for the Crown, as to whether such a defence can avail an accused on a charge of causing death by dangerous driving.
It has long been settled that the defence of duress is not available to an accused where the offence is murder, attempted murder or some forms of treason. However, it has always been debatable as to whether it would avail in respect of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown (Uriah) v The Queen
...instant case the judge directed the jury in terms which were similar to a direction of which this court expressly approved in R v Rhone Warren SCCA No. 78/1999 delivered on February 23, 2000. In delivering the judgment of that court (Forte P, Walker, Langrin, JJA) Forte P, had occasion to d......
-
Albert Paulton v R
...established….” If the jury accepts this defence, the result is that the accused must be acquitted. 37 This court, in R v Rhone Warren (2000) 59 WIR 360, has approved the guidance given in R v Martin. The defence, however, has advanced since R v Martin. Although it was first applied, in Eng......