The King v Adrian Llewelyn Carty

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: High Court (Montserrat)
• Judge: Stephenson J
• Judgment Date: 08 December 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J1208-1
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO: MNIHCR2024/0103

Between:

[1] The King

Crown

and

[2] Adrian Llewelyn Carty

Defendant

[2025] ECSC J1208-1

Before:

Hon. Madam Justice M E Birnie Stephenson (Ag)

CLAIM NO: MNIHCR2024/0103

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Appearances:

Ms. Allana Cumberbatch Crown Counsel for the Prosecution

Ms. Chivone Gerald with Mr. Kenroy Hyman for the Defendant

RULING

1 Stephenson J, [AG].: The defendant is before the court on a four-count indictment alleging indecent assault. During the testimony of the virtual complainant, prosecuting counsel asked the following questions:

Question: “After the last incident of inappropriate touching did you have any conversation with Mr Carty?” Answer “No”.

Question: “After the last incident of inappropriate touching did Mr Carty speak to you on the 12th September 2024?”

Answer “On the 12 ^th he apologized to me and I did not take it seriously because of the way he apologized”.

2 Counsel Mr Hyman objected to the second question and answer. There was a voir dire to consider Counsel's objection. Counsel's objection was not allowed. These are the reasons for the decision which I promised to deliver.

3 Counsel for the defence grounded his objection on principle of law of the finality of answers. Counsel submitted that the defence found the second question posed by the prosecution to be objectionable on the ground that the first question was a straightforward question and a straightforward answer was given. It was contended that when straightforward questions are asked and straightforward answers are given and there is no ambiguity it brings into play the concept and doctrine of finality of answers. Therefore, the question ought not to be asked again.

4 Counsel Hyman further submitted that the prosecutor's line of questioning amounts to a total erosion of that doctrine. Counsel pressed on, that the rules of evidence are being flouted by experienced and competent prosecuting counsel. Mr Hyman submitted that when the question was asked “after the last incident of inappropriate touching with Mr Carty did you speak or have a conversation with Mr Carty” there was a straight forward answer “No”.

5 Counsel further submitted that there was nothing ambiguous about the question or the answer to the question and the jury must have understood clearly the question and the answer given. Mr Hyman insisted that prosecuting counsel cannot be allowed to come via the back door to elicit as it were, the answer she is looking for, or to pull out of the witness the answers that she did not get. It is wrong and it runs against the thread of what the doctrine of finality of answer envisaged.

6 Counsel further expressed the defence's concern, that the jury heard that on the “12 ^th September came and apologized to me and I did not accept” and that this is highly prejudicial and the jury have been made aware that right or wrong Mr Carty apologized to her. Counsel submitted that the dilemma is that the accused apologized “for what?” 1. Counsel noted that the question put to the witness was premised on Mr Carty's action … and that the jury must be

thinking that based on the premise of the question that that the question related to the accused actions that, they must be thinking that wait a minute, that this young lady is saying that Carty apologized to her, that it suggests that Mr Carty is accepting that there was inappropriate touching

7 At this point the court pointed out to Counsel Hyman that the Doctrine of Finality of Answers arises in cross examination as it relates to collateral issues, and that the witness was still giving her evidence in chief.

8 The court then invited prosecuting counsel to respond to defence counsel's objection.

9 Counsel Ms Cumberbatch agreed with the court and submitted that the rule of finality of answers only applies to cross examination when it goes to the collateral issues and is therefore not applicable. Counsel further submitted in response that the evidence is not new. “That the defence knew of the evidence as it is in the witness's statement and they never indicated their objections reiating to the apology. Counsel also noted that the witness had not gotten to the point of stating the words Mr Carty said to her”. 2

10 Counsel Ms Cumberbatch submitted that the statement is contained in the witness's written statement and that it is relevant and it cannot be excluded on the ground as sought by defence counsel.

11 Defendant Counsel further submitted that she asked about a conversation with Mr Carty after the last incident in relation to the inappropriate touching and that was her question specifically. Counsel submitted that the witness answered to that, then she asked another question that is did “Mr Carty speak to you after the last incident?” Counsel submitted that though they are similar questions they are not the same. Ms Cumberbatch then went on to submit that when you ask questions of a witness persons have different abilities to understand and based on their abilities they would respond to the question.

Court's Considerations

12 Counsel for the defence grounded his objection to counsel for the prosecution repeating her previous question to the witness having rephrased it on the doctrine of finality of answers.

13 The general rule regarding finality of answers can be stated thus, that answers of witnesses to questions in cross examination pertaining to matters collateral to the proceedings are final. This rule is applicable to the cross examination of a witness and it “merely prevents the cross-examiner from calling further evidence in respect of matters which are not directly relevant to the issues in the proceedings. Collateral matters do not bear directly on the facts in issue in the trial, but on matters...