William Bradshaw Appellant v The Queen [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Judge: PETERKIN. J.A
• Judgment Date: 28 April 1976
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1976] ECSC J0428-1
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1 of 1976
• Court: Court of Appeal (Anguilla)
• Date: 28 April 1976

[1976] ECSC J0428-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1 of 1976

Between:

William Bradshaw

Appellant

and

The Queen

Appearances:

Mrs. M. Moore for appellant

Director of Public Prosecution (Odel Adams) for respondent

H. Brown and T. Seaton with him

PETERKIN. J.A

. delivered the Judgment of the Court:

1 The appellant was convicted on 23rd January, 1976, of the murder of Edward Hughes, and sentenced to death by hanging. He now appeals against his conviction on the following grounds:-

• 1. The learned trial Judge failed to direct the jury sufficiently on the law relating to provocation.

• 2. The verdict of the jury is unreasonable having regard to the evidence.

• 3. The verdict of the jury cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.

• 4. The statements—"Ah me do it, I stab him",

  "Coho you know what you do?",

  "Yes, he fucking me up too long", and

  "You ain't going to see me again,

  I just kill Cabby"

  were wrongly admitted in evidence and were prejudicial to the accused.

• 5. The learned trial Judge misdirected the jury on the law relating to self defence in that he postulated the test to be that of a reasonable man.

2 The facts and circumstances indicate that on 18th December,1975, at St. Paul's Village the appellant and Edward Hughes, the deceased, were playing dice when an argument arose over the stake money of 25 cents. The appellant moved away, taking up the dice and money, and at the same time handing back 10 cents to the deceased. The deceased threw it down, claming that the 25 cents belonged to him. He then held the appellant by the shirt. The appellant took out a knife from his pocket, and, opening it, made a stab at the deceased which missed him. They were separated, and the appellant closed the knife and replaced it in his pocket. He then gave the dice to one of the bystanders. The deceased who continued to demand the money and dice took away a dried date-palm stick about 3ft long and 1³/₄ins in diameter from one Wilson, a lad of 15 years, approached the appellant, and made a blow at him with it. Of the three witnesses who claimed to have witnessed the incident, two stated that the blow did not carry to the appellant. The third witness was not sure whether or not it had struck the appellant. They all stated, however, that at that stage the appellant took out his knife and stabbed the deceased, who fell to the ground and later died of the injury received. The appellant then left for the Police Station where he stated to Corporal Vasquez that he had stabbed the deceased.

3 Corporal Vasquez said in evidence that when he saw the appellant that day his lower lip appeared to be red and swollen. When seen by Sergeant Hanley about three hours lather the appellant's lower lip was still swollen.

4 The appellant in his defence stated that he was struck on his mouth with the stick by the deceased. He further stated that the deceased had pursued him and struck him two further blows with the stick when he had fallen, and that it was at that stage that he had stabbed the deceased.

5 Grounds two and three were not argured in view of thesubmissions made under ground 1 which will be dealt with at a later stage.

6 Under ground four Counsel referred the court to Cross on evidence 4th Edition, pages 24 to 27. Counsel conceded that the evidence was not objected to at the trial stage, and that it was, strickly speaking, admissible, but submitted that the Judge ought to have exercised his discretion to exclude it because its prejudicial value exceeded its probative value. The statement complained of was a voluntary oral admission made by the aprellant which was relevant. The court can see no good reason why it should have been excluded.

7 In regard to ground five, the gravamen of Counsel's complaint is that the learned trial Judge postulated the objective rather than the subjective test in directing the jury. Counsel was, however, not able to point out to the court any passage in the Judges summing up which supported her contention. We are of the view that the trial Judge's summing up in regard to self-defence was adequate.

8 Under ground 1 Counsel referred the court to the passages in the summing...