Nedd v R

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Court of Appeal (Antigua and Barbuda)
• Judge: St. Bernard J.A.
• Judgment Date: 18 July 1975
• Neutral Citation: AG 1975 CA 3
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1974
• Date: 18 July 1975

Court of Appeal

Davis, C.J.; St. Bernard, J.A.; Peterkin, J.A.

Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1974

Nedd

and

R.

Practice and procedure - Directions to jury — Appeal against conviction for murder on the ground that the trial judge misdirected jury on the question of intention to kill or cause serious bodily harm — Judge also failed to give the jury a definition of manslaughter which was wrong in the circumstances of the case — Conviction for murder set aside and conviction for manslaughter therefor.

St. Bernard J.A.

1 delivered the judgment of the Court: The appellant was convicted on the 26th September 1974 of the murder of Alpha Ephraim and sentenced to death by hanging. He now appeals against conviction.

2 The facts briefly are that on the 7th October 1973 at about: 7.30 a.m. the appellant, the deceased and others went to the home of one Sheila Sebastian, in the City of St. John. Sheila Sebastian left for church and returned about 10:30a.m. and found the men still there. She was asked by them to be allowed to cook some fish which they had and she refused their request. The men then sat around and began exchanging jokes in a friendly atmosphere. The appellant took off his shoes and fell asleep. While he was asleep someone hid the pair of shoes in the kitchen. When the appellant awoke he asked for his pair of shoes and Sheila told him that it was the deceased who had hidden them but the deceased denied this. The appellant went into the kitchen and found his shoes and according to the prosecution went and sat on the step for about five minutes. He then got up with his hand in his right pocket and went towards the deceased who was sitting about 10 to 18 feet away, saying ‘I could just chook you.’ He then stabbed the deceased (inch long and 2 inches from the midline in the fifth left inters-pace. The wound was 1) inches deep and ran downwards and backwards. Sheila went to the deceased's assistance while the appellant returned to his seat. She removed a knife from a sheath which was on the deceased and later handed it to the Police. The deceased was taken to hospital where he died at 1.55 p.m. on the same day as a result of the injury received.

3 The appellant made a statement from the dock in which he said in part as follows:

“I get up from where I was and went towards him. I tell him, “Amigo, give me my shoes man”. He said, ‘what shoes you asking me about?”. Sheila shout out to him, “You lie man, ah you take up the shoe hide in the kitchen.” He shove his hand in his pocket and pulled out his knife. After I see that, I take out mine. At the time he was standing up. I tell him “You think ah you one have a knife.” I did not observe the knife didn't lock and the knife fly and hit him in his chest. After that I went into the kitchen and search for the shoe. There were two empty sweet oil drums in the kitchen. I find the shoe behind one of the drum. I put it on in the kitchen. When I come out I saw Sheila have Amigo holding. I left and come out of the yard and went to my yard. Soon after somebody come to me in my house and tell me “You know Amigo dead?” When I went in the house I put the knife into the clothes bag. After the first person tell me, another one come and tell me. “Tejel, you kill Amigo”. My knees just cut from under me and I fall down there. From the time I come here eight years ago both of us are friends, drink together and so on. We never had no dispute at any time at all, until that Sunday, just a little misunderstanding between us. I never mean was to do him any hurt. Just to show him that I have a knife like him too and the knife fly and chook him. That's all.”

4 This statement corresponded with the statement he had...