Harrigan v The Queen

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Court: Court of Appeal (Anguilla)
• Judge: Moe, J. A.
• Judgment Date: 13 May 1991
• Neutral Citation: AI 1989 CA 3
• Docket Number: Magisterial Appeal No. 2 of 1989
• Date: 13 May 1991

Court of Appeal

Bishop, C.J. (Acting), Moe, J.A., Byron, J.A. (Acting)

Magisterial Appeal No. 2 of 1989

Harrigan

and

The Queen

Lee Moore and T.W.R. Astaphan for the appellant

Mr. DeFrietas for the respondent

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Appellant was shot when gun went off while he and respondent fought for its possession — Whether initial act of appellant is disclosing his revolver was reckless in the circumstances — Inference that disclosure of firearm would result in physical harm not reasonable — Conviction and sentence set aside.

1 Moe, J. A. The appellant was tried before a magistrate on a complaint which charged that on the 8th day of June, 1988 at Shoal Bay he did unlawfully and maliciously wound St. Clair Harrigan contrary to section 19 of the Offences Against the Person Act, Cap. 96.

2 On the date concerned the appellant engaged two men to cut a road with a Bulldozer through a piece of land at Shoal Ray. There was a dispute between the appellant and St. Clair Harrigan about the ownership of the land over which the road was to go. When the two men arrived at the area where the incident occurred, St. Clair, his wife and daughter were there. St. Clair had coma there carrying a stick and his wife had a machete. They intercepted the bulldozer operator who got in touch with the appellant who later arrived on the scene carrying in a holster in his waist a fully loaded firearm, There was a stand-off at the scene.

3 The magistrate made specific findings that Crystal Harrigan, wife of St. Clair Harrigan saw an act of the appellant in pulling back his shirt disclosing his revolver which caused her to become frightened, and that St. Clair Harrigan in fear for his wife'ssafety jumped the accused and wrestled for possession of the revolver. The magistrate accepted that had the accused not made the movement with his hand exposing the gun and causing fright St. Clair Harrigan would not have jumped him and the wrestling for the gun would not have taken place.

4 St. Clair Harrigan received a wound to his leg from a shot discharged from the appellant'srevolver. The magistrate was satisfied that the shot went off as a result of both St. Clair and the appellant fighting for possession of the revolver. The magistrate considered the act of the appellant in pulling back his shirt and disclosing his revolver as reckless and showing utter disregard on the appellant'spart as to whether such an act in what was an already tense situation would cause harm. Being satisfied there was sufficient evidence that the wounding was unlawful and malicious the magistrate convicted the appellant.

5 It is unnecessary to set out seriatim the grounds of appeal filed and argued. The main complaint against the decision is that on the totality of the magistrate'sfindings there is no fault attributable to the appellant. It was — submitted that the magistrate found no act on the part of the appellant which was the proximate or direct cause of the wound to the virtual complainant St. Clair Harrigan. Further that the intervening actions of St. Clair Harrigan render inoperative any effect of the appellant exposing his gun.

6 The respondent'ssubmission was that the appellant initiated a course of events in a reckless manner which ultimately resulted in the wound to St. Clair Harrigan. He created a dangerous situation and is guilty of the injury which occurred as a result, no matter in what way the injury occurred. That the appellant...