Phillip Revan Appellant v The Queen [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Judge: DAVIS, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 15 December 1978
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1978] ECSC J1215-1
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 1978
• Date: 15 December 1978
• Court: Court of Appeal (Anguilla)

[1978] ECSC J1215-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon. Sir Maurice Davis, Q.C.—Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice Peterkin

The Honourable Mr. Justice Berridge

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 1978

Between:

Phillip Revan

Appellant

and

The Queen

Appearances:

T. Byron for Appellant

M. Joseph (D.P.P.) for the Crown

1 DAVIS, C.J. delivered the Judgment of the Court:

2 The Appellant, Phillip Revan, was charged with the offence of murder, the particulars of which were, that he on the 15th day of January 1978, at "The Abbott" West Farm in the Parish of Trinity, murdered John Hendrickson. He was tried before Mr. Justice Glasgow sitting with a jury, and at the end of the trial, the jury found him guilty of murder and he was sentenced to death by hanging. He now appeals against his conviction on the following two grounds:-

• "(1) That the Learned Trial Judge misdirected the jury when he ruled that the evidence of the witness for the prosecution was not capable of disclosing a basis in law for a finding by the jury that the defendant was provoked.

• (2) That the Learned Trial Judge failed properly to direct the Jury that in considering the totality of the evidence they were entitled to reject the defendant's version of his provocation and on their assessment of all the relevant circumstances infer that he had been provoked."

3 The facts, stated briefly, are that on the 15th January, 1978, the Appellant and the Deceased, together with Victor Charles and Eustace Storrod, wore listening to a broadcast of a cricket match in a yard at "The Abbott" West Farm. The evidence is that they wore all good friends. The Appellant had a pot cooking on a fire in the yard close to his room. The Deceased got up and lit a cigarette by taking a firestick from the Appellant's fireplace. According to Victor Charles, a witness for the Crown, the Appellant called on the Deceased to move from his fireplace, at the same time threatening to wound him if he did not do so. The Deceased then said to the Appellant, "You want me to out the fire?" The Appellant entered his room and emerged with a cutlass. He went up to the Deceased, and, raising the cutlass, said, "I bet I cut your mother's cunt." He did not attempt to cut the Deceased with the cutlass, but, instead, put back the cutlass in his room and returned with a long knife. He advanced towards the Deceased who, in backing away, s tumbled on a stone and fell backwards; whereupon the Appellant thrust the knife into the left side of the Deceased. The Deceased got up and holding his side, said to Appellant, "Phillip", you mean to say you stab me for true?" The Deceased then fell to the ground bleeding from his side. The Appellant returned to his room with the knife, then came out and walked away in the direction of the sea. When the Police arrived some time later that day, John Hendrickson was seen to be dead and the Appellant handed them the knife.

4 The evidence of Victor Charles was supported by that of another witness for the Crown, Eustace Storrod.

5 Dr. Charles Jong arrived some time later and viewed the body of the Deceased. He performed a post mortem examination on the body at about 6.30 p.m. the same afternoon. Externally, there was a 3 ¹/₂ inch long horizontal sharp stab wound 3 inches below the left nipple. On internal examination he found a 4 inch long lateral stab wound on the fifth rib through the chest cavity which cut right into the heart chamber. The cause of death was due to shock and excessive haemorrhage. In the doctor's opinion maximum force was necessary, and that the knife shown to him could have caused the injuries.

6 The Appellant's defence at the trial was but in an unsworn statement which he elected to make from the dock. Substantially it was the same as that given in a statement made to the Police on the same day of the incident. The Appellant stated that he was at his dresser peeling some food with his pot on the fire when the Deceased came over his pot. He told him to move but he did not do so, and he accordingly pushed him away. He went on to state that the Deceased then took up a big can which he had on the dresser and struck him three times on his face with it, threatening to put out his fire. The Deceased, he said, then pushed him three times, after which, he, the Appellant, took up a knife which he had on the dresser and pushed it into the side of the Deceased. The Appellant stated that he had no evil in his mind against him.

7 The Appellant's account was put in cross-examination to the two eye witnesses for the Crown, namely Charles and Storrod, who both rejected it.

8 In directing the Jury the learned trial Judge said at p.32 of the record,

"You may well think that Victor Charles and Eustace Storrod were so pre-occupied with the cricket commentary that they did not notice a lot of the things that the accused has told us about, because if you find that what Victor...