Court of Appeal
Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1983
11th May, 1984
SIR JOHN SUMMERFIELD P.
ALBERT L. STAINE J.A.
KENNETH ST. L. HENRY J.A.

Appeal against conviction and sentence of 7 years imprisonment with hard labour imposed for manslaughter - evidence of officer that when asked where he had stabbed the man Appellant responded by pointing out specific spot - evidence in itself sufficient to justify verdict - other statement given to police under caution and in writing also sufficient to justify verdict - impeccable summing up by judge - appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.

J U D G M E N T

The Appellant was charged with the murder of Edmond Goff. He was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment with hard labour.

The time was about 12:30 a.m. on 12th June 1983 and the place was by the Super B on Albert Street.

The prosecution case may be summarized as follows.

The Appellant and Goff were at the Super B. Goff was handed a burger he had ordered and paid for. The Appellant took it from him. There was an argument as to who should have the burger and angry words were exchanged. Goff said they would have to "hassle". They grabbed each other moving a little way from the stand. They dropped to the ground. Goff was underneath with the Appellant on top of him. Neither was seen with any thing in his hands. When the Appellant was getting up he dropped something and ran off. Goff then got up and was seen to be bleeding. He returned to the Super B. There he staggered and dropped and was again seen to have blood running down his chest. On his arrival at the hospital shortly after 12:30 a.m. he was pronounced dead. He had two minor injuries and a serious wound on the left side of the thorax, with the left lung collapsed. The haemorrhage from the wound to the thorax was the cause of death. The wounds were consistent with having been made by a sharp edge pointed instrument. The Appellant was arrested at about 5:50 a.m. the same morning. Whilst passing the Super B in a vehicle on his way to the C.I.B. the Appellant was asked by a corporal attached to the Tactical Service Unit where he had stabbed the man. The Appellant replied that it was in front of the Supper B Burger stand and pointed out the stand.

That evidence in itself was sufficient to justify the verdict. A jury would have been entitled to have reached the irresistible conclusion that it was the Appellant who inflicted the fatal wound.

In a cautioned statement to the police at 6 p.m. the same day, the Appellant claimed that it was Goff who tried to grab the burger from him and that Goff was armed with a knife. His version of the incident was:

"Having reached the northern side of the burger place the fellow who had a knife took it out and he tried to stab me with the knife. When the fellow tried to stab me, I held on to the knife and I got a small cut between my right thumb and forefinger. When I got cut, I still managed to take away the knife from the fellow and I stabbed him on the front portion of his body but I am not able to say exactly where I caught him. After I stabbed the fellow I ran and went home. After I stabbed the fellow I dropped the knife on the street and I did not take it with me. The knife is about six inches with the wooden handle included."

The verdict would also be consistent with that version.

In his statement from the dock at his trial the Appellant gave a somewhat different version but still claimed that it was Goff who was trying to get the burger from him. He said:

"So he tell me we going to hassle for the burger. I told him to cool off. He didn't listen to me. Came up to me and kick me on my private. So I went down and he kicked me. He was coming back to kick me again. That is how we start to hassle. That time I didn't notice where he took the knife from. He wanted to juck me with the knife so I grab on to the knife. Meanwhile me and Edmond Goff hassling against the side. What I hear about three jucks I didn't know about three jucks. I still told him to cool off but he didn't want to cool off. So I took away the knife. Still coming after me. He looked like he wanted to hurt me. That juck he got from me I didn't mean to juck him, it was when he came at me I shove out the knife. I hear him say he get a juck same time and I leave him alone and run. As I run I dropped the knife,"

In an impeccable summing up the learned Chief Justice gave full directions on all relevant aspects, including directions on the defences of self defence and provocations implicit in the Appellant's cautioned statement and statement from the dock. There was clearly evidence on which the jury was entitled to reach the conclusion it did and there are no grounds for intervention by this Court.

The appeal against conviction must be dismissed and it is so ordered. The jury must have returned the verdict it did on the basis of excessive force in the exercise of self defence, provocation or the absence of an intention to kill at the time of inflicting the fatal blow. Whatever the basis for the verdict, on the facts outlined, it is impossible to say that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. This court would not be justified in intervening.

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

----------OO----------