Williams v R

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Cools-Lartigue, J.
• Judgment Date: 12 February 1960
• Neutral Citation: JM 1960 CA 3
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Date: 12 February 1960

Court of Appeal

Cools-Lartigue, J.A.; Small, J.A.; Duffus, J.A.

Williams

and

R.

Appearances:

Coore and Fernandez-McCartney for the appellant.

Parnell for the Crown.

Criminal law - Murder — Manslaughter — Directions to jury — Whether facts are capable of amounting to provocation is a question of law for the judge to decide — Section 3C of the Offences against the Person (Amendment) Law, 1958, does not affect judge's responsibility.

Cools-Lartigue, J.

1 The appellant was convicted at a sitting of the Home Circuit on November 3rd, 1959, of the murder of Lloyd James in the parish of St. Andrew and sentenced to death in the manner prescribed by law by the learned Chief Justice. From that conviction and sentence he appealed. At the conclusion of the arguments the Court stated that the appeal would be allowed and a new trial ordered and that the reason, for its decision would be given at a later date. We now do so.

2 The facts surrounding the death of Lloyd Tames may be briefly summarised as follows:

3 Elijah Love had a shoemaker's shop at 20 Tobias Street, Rose Town, in the parish of St.Andrew.On Sunday, September 6th, 1959, there was a gambling game with cards known as “peter pat” going on in the shop, the participants being the shoemaker Elijah Love, Lloyd Allen, the deceased and the appellant. The cards being used belonged to the deceased and he exacted and received as “house-master” a “less” of three pence for every six games. One George Lewis was also in the shop looking on.

4 It appears that the appellant had bad luck and that he lost the greater part, if not all, of his money. There is evidence that the appellant asked the deceased to give him a “less” which the latter did. On being requested again by the appellant to give him another “less” the deceased refused, whereupon the appellant got annoyed, used bad language and took out a knife to destroy the cards. At the request of those present he desisted and eventually Elijah Love turned those present out of his shop. They all went outside. It is evident that the appellant was still anxious to get money from the deceased. After unsuccessful requests to that effect, the appellant went up to the deceased and held his hand in an endeavour to take away the money. According to the case for the Crown, the appellant then picked up a shoemaker's knife from a table in the shop and again held the hand of the deceased, The appellant was heard to say to the deceased, “I soon jook you,” and stabbed him with the knife in his left breast. The appellant put back the knife on the table and let go the deceased. Shortly afterwards the deceased said, “and the man jook me you know sah.”

5 He then left saying he was going to the station. It is common ground that the deceased collapsed and died a short distance from the shop.

6 The medical evidence was to the effect that the deceased was found to suffer from a stab wound to the left side of the chest going through the chest wall and into the left ventricle of the heart. In the opinion of the doctor death was due to haemorrhage and shock following the stab wound to the heart.

7 The story of the appellant, who gave evidence on his own behalf, did not differ to any great extent from that of the Crown. He admitted the gambling and losing money. He also admitted taking up a knife to destroy the cards but denied having the knife on him, maintaining that it was a knife in the shoemaker's shop that he had picked up. The appellant then proceeded to say that during his talk with the deceased over the money, he held the right hand of the deceased with his left and was trying...