Ronald Gederon Appellant v The Queen Respondent
| Jurisdiction | Antigua and Barbuda |
| Judge | BYRON, J.A. |
| Judgment Date | 03 February 1997 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1997] ECSC J0203-1,[1997] ECSC (ATG) J0203-1 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 14 OF 1995 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Antigua and Barbuda) |
| Date | 03 February 1997 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
The Hon. Mr. C.M. Dennis Byron Chief Justice [Ag.]
The Hon. Mr. Satrohan Singh Justice of Appeal
The Hon. Mr. Albert Matthew Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 14 OF 1995
Mr. T. Guerra S.C. & Ms T. Bemjamin-Henry for the Appellant
Mr. C. Cumberbatch, D.P.P. for the Respondent
Criminal Law — Murder conviction — Death sentence — Defence of lack of intention to kill — Whether there was sufficient evidence of malice aforethought — The requisite intent for murder — Whether adequate directions given by trial judge on the issues of foresight and probability — R v Hancock & Shankland (1986) H.L., R v Nedrick (1986) H.L. considered — Sonny Lockhart v The Queen St. Vincent C.A. cited — The law on implied malice — The objective vis-a-vis the subjective test — Eustace Armstrong v The Queen Antigua C.A., Bertram Abraham v The Queen St. Vincent C.A. cited — Alleged material irregularity — Alleged misdirections by trial judge — Whether appellant should be acquitted on ground of alleged misdirection to jury on manslaughter — Leung Kam-Kwok v R 81 Cr. App. R. P.C. considered — Whether jury had been contaminated — An issue of bias on part of jury — R v Gough (1993) H.L. considered — Defences of accident, self-defence and provocation — Whether application of force used by appellant was itself unlawful — Supreme Court Act. Murder conviction set aside in favour of verdict of manslaughter. Substituted sentence.
On 11 th December 1995 the appellant was convicted by a jury for the murder of his girl-friend Monique Ramsey on 17th July 1994 and sentenced to death by the presiding trial judge Benjamin J.
The deceased had suffered a fracture to the right superior wing of the thyroid cartilage which is popularly known as the Adam's Apple. Dr. Simon, the pathologist reported that there were very small pinpoint or petechial haemorrhages on the surfaces of both lungs and on the cover of the heart which, he said, accompany asphyxia. He expressed the opinions that sustained excessive force would have caused the injury to the thyroid cartilage, and that the fracture could have been caused by pressure of the thumb or other digits. He said that after the cartilage is broken it takes a person 2–3 minutes to become unconscious and 3–4 minutes to die. He concluded that the deceased died from a classical case of strangulation.
In his evidence at the trial the Appellant admitted that he had caused the death and described an incident at his home in which he said that the deceased was hitting him and kicking him and he was pushing her off. He said
"I was using my left hand. I lost balance and she lost balance and we both toppled over on the bed. …I fell over her and the same time she tried kicking me. I was trying to get off. I was trying to hold her foot. I was trying to block it off. I was trying to push myself up to get up. She was not moving. It appeared she was unconscious. At first I though she was playing or something…When I held her and pushed her off I did not squeeze her neck. I did not apply any pressure to her neck. I just pushed her off……..I did not deliberately or intentionally kill Monique Ramsey"
This description of how the deceased died was somewhat different to what he had told the police in a statement he made at 12.20 a.m. on 21st July 1994.
"Then she just started hitting me, saying I know you lied to me, Only because you know I love you that's why you do this to me. She just kept hitting me and saying I love you so much. I love you so much, and started kicking me and started scratching me. I was trying to calm her down and pushed her off saying to her I love you I love you. She just kept pelting punches and kicking me. I held on to her by her neck and trying to hold her hand at the same time and calm her down. While I was holding her and doing that we both fell on the bed. She was still kicking and hitting me and I was still holding her by her neck. I think I might have bitten her on her leg while she was still hitting me. she start using her other leg and start kicking me. Next thing I know she just stop like she passed out………I never intended this to happen."
The appellant's story was clearly inconsistent with the medical evidence which if accepted by the jury would require the conclusion that his versions were untrue and that he had applied sustained excessive force to the deceased's throat.
The issue of motive was addressed by evidence which showed that the appellant, a national of Trinidad and a pilot with LIAT, came to live in Antigua where he met the deceased and started a romantic relationship with her. Although his wife Claudette was living in Trinidad, he arranged to marry the deceased and applied for and obtained a marriage licence falsely stating that he was divorced and presenting false divorce documents. The appellant subsequently went to the Registrar of the Supreme Court and made arrangements to marry the deceased in a Civil Ceremony on November 11th 1993 at 10.00 a.m. The ceremony was not performed on that date or at all.
On Friday 15th July 1994 the deceased took Vivian Cephas a girlfriend and her brother Wydie to Web's Disco. Next morning 16th July 1994 between 7.00 a.m. and 8.00 a.m. the appellant came to Vivian's home. He said that the deceased had told him that she had finished with the relationship because there were too many lies and he wanted her to enlighten him. He said he still loved her and did not want to lose her. Vivian told him she could not breach the deceased's confidence and that he should give the deceased time. In his evidence at the trial the appellant admitted the deception and that the deceased had been accusing him of lying but denied that she had told him that their relationship was ended.
At 4.00 p.m. on that day the appellant worked as first officer to Capt. Gilkes on a Liat flight Antigua to Trinidad with intermediate stops which arrived there about 8.00 p.m.
On Sunday 17th July 1994 the appellant worked as first officer to Capt. Gilkes on the Liat flight scheduled to go from Trinidad to Antigua to San Juan Puerto Rico and back to Antigua with intermediate stops. The flight got to Antigua from Trinidad between 10.45 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. and was scheduled to depart on the other legs about 11.15 a.m. to 11.20 a.m. There was evidence that the appellant telephoned Vivian Cephas and asked her about her conversations with the deceased. Vivian told him that she said that she had finished with the relationship. At the trial the appellant denied making that call and having this conversation.
The theory that the appellant planned to kill the deceased was addressed by evidence which showed that he telephoned the deceased at her parents home and spoke to her. That he told Capt. Gilkes that he had received information that his house had been broken into and he wanted to go and check on it. About 10.50 a.m. the Operations office received a call from the appellant that he had to go to check his home which had been broken into. About 11.00 a.m. the same Operations officer received another call from the appellant that things were missing from his home and he would have to call the police, and as he did not know how long it would take a reserve should be called out. That was done and the flight continued without the appellant. There was evidence to show, and the appellant admitted at the trial, that it was not true that the appellant had suffered any robbery nor called the police to investigate.
About 11.15 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. the appellant went to the deceased's home and spoke to her sister Nornette, but the deceased had gone to Church with her mother. Shortly after, the appellant was seen entering the Church in his pilot's uniform speaking to the deceased and then leaving the church. The deceased's father James Ramsey saw the appellant walking up and down their front porch in an agitated manner and asked him if he has a problem. He said no, he was waiting for the deceased to come because he was tired and wants to go home to rest.
After 1.00 p.m. the deceased and her mother returned from Church. The deceased's mother testified that the appellant was standing at the gate with a lug wrench and the hub cap for his car in his hand. An issue was made of this at the trial because the appellant denied that he had the lug wrench but insisted that he had asked the deceased to carry him to his home to get a lug wrench because the lugs on his car wheel were not tight enough. He offered the explanation that he had removed the lug wrench from his car at Capt. Wilkinson's home. In any event the appellant spoke to the deceased and they left in her jeep for his home. She was dressed in a long black dress and high heel clog shoes.
About 2.00 p.m. the appellant returned to the home of the deceased' parents. From the totality of the evidence and the admissions of the appellant the inference that the deceased was already dead was inescapable. The appellant explained that although he wanted to tell the truth he did not say anything to her parents because he was afraid of their reaction. He returned the jeep and took his own car. There was no evidence to indicate that he effected any repairs to his car before driving it off. It would have been open to the jury to conclude that he had concocted a false reason to get the deceased to go to his home, and that he had already decided to kill her, at that time.
The evidence of the appellant's attempts to conceal the death of the deceased and the part he played in it was addressed by evidence which showed that the deceased's family immediately suspected foul play. Her mother called the appellant on the telephone and asked for the deceased. He said she went for a walk to her cousin Pauline at New Winthropes. The mother recognised the falsehood...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newton Spence Appellant v The Queen Respondent
... [1997] ECSC J0203-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE The Hon. C.M. Dennis Byron Chief Justice (Ag.) The Hon. Satrohan Singh Justice of Appeal The Hon. Albert Redhead Justice of Appeal (Ag.) CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 14 OF 1995 Between: Newton Spence Appellant and The Queen Respondent Appearances: Mr......