Andre Bennett and Another v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Steyn,Lord Hutton |
| Judgment Date | 17 July 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] UKPC 37 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 74 of 2000 |
| Date | 17 July 2001 |
[2001] UKPC 37
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Slynn of Hadley
Lord Steyn
Lord Hoffmann
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Hutton
Privy Council
[Majority Judgment delivered by Lord Hutton]
On the afternoon of 25th July 1996 an elderly woman named Myrtle Linda Williams was found by her son lying dead on a bed in a bedroom of her house in St George's, Grenada. The bedroom was on the upper floor of the house and the kitchen was also on the upper floor. Her throat had been cut, a cloth was tied round her mouth, and she had numerous other stab wounds to her body.
The two appellants, together with a third man, Wayne Murray, were charged with the murder of Mrs Williams and were tried in March 1998 before St Paul J and a jury. At the conclusion of the trial the two appellants were convicted and sentenced to death. The third co-accused, Wayne Murray, was acquitted after a successful submission of no case to answer at the conclusion of the Crown case. The appellants appealed against their convictions to the Court of Appeal and the appeals were dismissed on 27th July 1998. They now appeal with special leave to the Board.
The Crown case
At the trial the principal witness for the Crown was an accomplice, Kyron McFarline. He was a young man aged about 18 at the time of the trial. His evidence was that he knew the appellant Bennett well, and through him knew the appellant John and the other co-accused Murray. He described in considerable detail how with the two appellants and Murray he went to the home of the deceased. The appellants and Murray went into the house and he went in after them. In the kitchen he saw Bennett holding a long black-handled knife with teeth to the throat of a lady while she signed a cheque for him. John was standing close to her. The lady handed over the cheque to Bennett, who put it in his pocket. John then put a piece of cloth round the lady's mouth, and as he did so Bennett stabbed her on the left shoulder bone. He (McFarline) ran to a gas station nearby and the two appellants, together with Murray, then came running down to the gas station. Later that day Bennett came to his (McFarline's) home and told him that he had given the lady 21 stabs. He also told him that if he talked he would be a dead man, and he had a gun in his hand. At that time Bennett was living with "Portia".
The Crown also called Portia Clarke who was Bennett's girlfriend, and the mother of his young child. When she was first called to give evidence on 11th March 1998 she said that at 12 noon on 25th July 1996 she was at home with Bennett and that he then went over to see a neighbour at 2.00 pm, returning home at 6.00 pm. When he left he did not take anything with him and he did not do anything when he returned.
The prosecution applied to be allowed to treat her as a hostile witness on the ground that the evidence which she had given was inconsistent with her evidence at the committal proceedings. On the following day of the trial the judge ruled that she should be given the opportunity to refresh her memory from her deposition, but as she was not in court a bench warrant was issued for her. When she was recalled to the witness box on 16th March 1998 she confirmed that she had now read her deposition. She said that on 25th July, at about 12 midday, Bennett left the house and went into town taking with him a black-handled knife with teeth at the top. When he returned at about 2. 00 or 3.00 pm, she saw him in the kitchen washing blood off a knife in the sink and she noticed that his pants had something like blood on them. When she asked him what had happened to them, he replied that he had got a cut on his hand but after an argument he asked her for some kerosene and burnt the clothes he had been wearing. He showed her a cheque and asked her where he could get it changed, and she said "I tell him go and see, he might go in jail". She saw the name "Andre" and "$5000" written on the cheque. In cross-examination by counsel for Bennett, Portia Clarke agreed that she had been detained by the police for 5 days in connection with the murder when she was about 4 months' pregnant. She said that "Someone did frighten me to give evidence in this case".
Dr Rukmini Jayaram, a government pathologist, gave evidence that on 26th July 1996 she performed an autopsy on the body of Mrs Williams. The cause of death was a penetrating wound to the left side of the neck which severed the left internal jugular vein which led to a massive haemorrhage. In addition there were many other lacerated wounds to the body.
The Crown also sought to adduce in evidence written confession statements alleged to have been made by each appellant. Each appellant objected to the admissibility of his alleged statement on the ground that it was not voluntary, having been obtained by force and threats on the part of Inspector Mason and Inspector Maitland, and two voire dires were held. Inspector Mason and Inspector Maitland gave evidence that each appellant had made a written confession when interviewed by them - on 14th September 1996 in the case of Bennett and on 16th September 1996 in the case of John. Both inspectors said that they had used no force or threats and that each statement was made voluntarily.
Bennett said in evidence that in the police station Inspector Mason slapped him in the belly and on the back, gave him shocks to his head and body "with a black ting with two sprang on the end", and beat him on his body with a piece of iron, lashing him first on the belly. He then put out five bullets on the table, put one in a gun, and put the gun to his head.
In support of his allegations Bennett called Bervon Norcisse, a prison officer, and Dr Trevor Friday. Norcisse said that he saw Bennett around 1635 hours on 16th September 1996 at Richmond Hill Prison. He asked him if there was anything wrong with him and he said that he had some bruises on his skin. When he asked him how he got the bruises he said he sustained them from "the police officers". He looked at him and saw the bruises and made a note as regards his observations.
Dr Trevor Friday said that he was a district medical officer. He went to Richmond Hill Prison on 18 September 1996 where he examined Bennett who complained that he had some bruises on his right arm and abdomen. He saw that he had a few abrasions on his right arm on the outer aspect and that he also had some abrasions and bruising on the upper abdomen. There was nothing else. A blunt trauma could have caused those injuries. On cross-examination he said that the abrasions were not fresh.
John said in evidence that in the South St George police station he was forced to sign the statement. Inspector Mason held his hand and said "Sign quick, sign quick". He had an apparatus in his hand which he kept resting on him hard. Inspector Maitland, Sergeant Dunbar and another police officer whom he called "Mr Joe" were also in the room. Inspector Maitland had a piece of wood hitting him with it. Sergeant Dunbar had a table foot and Sergeant Joe had a gun to his head.
In support of his allegations John called Finbar Charles, a prison officer, and Dr Trevor Friday. Charles said that he saw John on 18th September 1996 at the prison gate lodge. He observed some bruises on the lower part of his left hand. He asked him how he came by the bruises and John replied that he got them as a result of lashes from a police officer and told him it was Mr Mason. Dr Trevor Friday said that he visited the prison on 18th September 1996. While in the prison he saw John and had a conversation with him. He examined him and saw some abrasions on his left shoulder. There were no other findings. The abrasions were fresh and were about a day or two old.
At the conclusion of the voir dire in relation to Bennett's statement the judge ruled that the evidence did not lead him to believe that the statement was not made voluntarily. The judge stated that he would hand down a ruling in writing later, but that this does not appear to have been done.
At the conclusion of the voir dire in relation to John the judge gave the following ruling:
"Except as regards the period of time the accused was detained before the statement was allegedly given the evidence does not suggest that the statement was obtained involuntarily or not made voluntarily.
I do not believe the evidence of Augustus John. I accept the evidence of the prosecution. The statement was to my mind made voluntarily and not by improper or unfair means."
After the rulings on the voir dires the alleged written statements were put in evidence before the jury.
Bennett's defence case
Bennett made an unsworn statement from the dock. He said that on 25th July 1996 he was in his home at Boca. About nine in the morning he went to a neighbour's, and from there he went to Grenville where he spent most of the day and then he went to Mount Horne. He remained there "by my girlfriend uncle". He did not return home until the next day.
After 25th July 1996 Stephen Williams, the woman's son, called him to work part-time with him. During the months of July and August he asked him to work part-time on a number of occasions. He asked him if he knew that his mother had died and he told him "No". He did not know that his mother had died. He then described how in September he was picked up by the police and was taken by them to South St George police station. The police questioned him about the woman's death and he told them that he knew nothing about what they were talking about. He then described, as he had done in the voir dire, the manner in which the police had threatened and physically ill-treated him and forced him to make a statement which was untrue. Bennett then called the prison...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
1) Elvon Barry 2) Zoyd Clement 3) Kenton Phillip v The Queen
...that Barry was not beaten. In support of this ground Mr. Clouden, counsel for Barry, relied onBennett (Andre) and John (Augustus) v R [2001] UKPC 37.1 That case provides a helpful comparison. 22 In that case the appellants were charged with murder. At their trials confession statements by b......
-
Stephen Stubbs v R
...v South Wales Transport [1948] 1 KB 55 distinguished Benedetto v R [2003] UKPC 27 considered Bennet (Andre) and John (Augustus) v R (2001) 60 WIR 123 applied Director of Public Prosecutions v Martin Kelly [2006] 3 IR 115 considered El Shaddai Ferguson v R SCCrApp. No. 313 of 2013 followed ......
-
Sherfield Bowen Appellant v The Queen Respondent [ECSC]
...and sentence. 46 The question which arises is whether this case should be remitted to the High Court for a retrial. In Andre Bennett and Another v The Queen, 27 the Privy Council reiterated that the issue of a retrial order depends upon whether the interest of justice and the public interes......
-
Mervin Jarrett v R
...been approved in a number of recent Privy Council cases such as Nicholls v R [2000] UKPC 52; (2000) 57 WIR 154, Bennett and Another v R [2001] UKPC 37; [2001] 5 LRC 665 and in judgments handed down by this court, such as R v Sergeant (2010) 78 WIR 410 and Kenrick Dawkins v R [2015] JMCA ......