Chalmers v R

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: Court of Appeal (Montserrat)
• Judge: Robotham, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 31 October 1984
• Neutral Citation: MS 1984 CA 1
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1983
• Date: 31 October 1984

Court of Appeal

Robotham, C.J. Bishop, J.A. Williams, J.A. (Acting)

Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1983

Chalmers

and

R

Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction — Murder

Facts: The appellant's main ground of appeal concerned the judge's directions to the jury on the issue of corroboration and secondly whether the medical evidence referring to the deceased's injuries amounted to corroboration of the evidence of a witness who was a self confessed liar.

Held: The evidence could not amount to corroboration in the legal sense. At its highest it was merely supportive of one aspect of the witness's evidence. Order made that the conviction would be set aside and an order made for a re-trial.

Robotham, C.J.

1 This appellant was convicted on November 17, 1983 for the murder of John Sweeney on August 13, 1983. The deceased died from cardiac tamponade the result of a stab wound which penetrated the right ventricle of the heart.

2 The deceased and the appellant were members of a Rastafarian group known as the “Rockers Iration”. The appellant was the acknowledged leader of the group, and the deceased was known within that group as Earth.

3 Amongst the possessions of the group were cattle, goats, sheep, a donkey, musical instruments and motorcars. Sometime prior to August 13, one of the cattle went astray and was impounded. This caused the appellant to become upset at the fact that he had to pay pound fees to recover the animal.

4 On the Morning of August 13, 1983 in the course of an argument in which the deceased and the appellant were involved, the deceased decided he was going for the animal. A witness Elijah Sweeney and brother of the deceased produced $20.00 and the accused handed over another $20.00 towards the pound fee. Noel John, another member of the group was then told by the appellant to go outside and fix the brakes on the car and he left.

5 The argument between the deceased and the appellant developed, and the deceased is alleged to have told the appellant that he had information that a woman had seen him, the appellant, cut the animal's rope. This further angered the appellant who took hold of the long hair of the deceased (referred to within the group as “locks”) and started slamming his head against a plywood sheet. When deceased demanded to be released, the appellant told him several times “you have to humble”.

6 Elijah Sweeney remonstrated with the appellant but was ignored.

7 According to Sweeney, the appellant dragged his brother, the deceased, by the locks towards a kitchen cabinet where he picked up a sheep knife the blade of which was about 8 inches long. The appellant then tried to force the deceased into a sitting position by applying downward pressure to his head, whilst still gripping the locks. The deceased resisted, and appellant was still demanding that deceased “humble to him”.

8 Two boys came into the kitchen area where this episode was taking place and were driven out harshly by the appellant. Then the appellant turned to Elijah Sweeney and still holding deceased said “I am the fucking murderer. I am a murderer. I am the fucking vampire”. He then turned to the deceased and stabbed him in the chest, after which the appellant released his hold on deceased locks and he fell to the ground.

9 Noel John came in and assisted in getting deceased to the Hospital, where he died whilst receiving emergency treatment. This witness Sweeney admittedly Iied to the nurse and the doctor at the Hospital when he told them that the deceased had fallen on a stake. He also took an active part in concealing the shirt the deceased had on when he was stabbed.

10 The Crown called the witness Noel John who had been repairing the car. He said that on completion, he went to the kitchen and saw a struggle between the appellant, the deceased, and his brother Elijah Sweeney. His entrance distracted the men and the appellant jumped out on to a balcony, pursued by Elijah Sweeney with a knife. At this point of his evidence, and on the application of the Counsel for the Crown John was treated as a hostile witness. His statement to the Police on August 16, and his evidence on oath taken at the preliminary enquiry, which were diametrically opposed to the evidence now being given by him, were put to him in cross-examination. He admitted that in his statement to the Police, he told them nothing about seeing the three men struggling, and further he told them nothing in the statement to the effect that Sweeney had a knife or that he pursued the accused with one. He also admitted that he lied before the Magistrate at the enquiry. His explanation was that he was afraid of the threats made on his life by Elijah Sweeney.

11 The appellant in his statement from the dock, told of the argument involving the deceased and himself over the impounded animal. He said that he heard the deceased grumbling that a woman told him that he the appellant had cut the rope. He called the deceased a liar. Deceased chucked him, and he chucked deceased in return. Deceased then punched at him, and held on to his testicles. Appellant said he held on to deceased locks. Elijah Sweeney told him let go of the deceased. They were both wrestling and he looked up in time to see Elijah “shove a knife at I”. As he eased away from the stab made at him by Elijah Sweeney, the knife caught the deceased. Well John was there and shouted out something and appellant said he got away and ran,...