Crosdale v R
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Steyn |
| Judgment Date | 06 April 1995 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Privy Council Appeal 13 of 1994 |
| Date | 06 April 1995 |
Privy Council
Lord Goff of Chieveley; Lord Mustill; Lord Slynn of Hadley; Lord Nicholls Birkenhead; Lord Steyn
Privy Council Appeal 13 of 1994
Criminal practice and procedure - Appeal against conviction — Murder — Sentence of death was imposed — Sentence was commuted to life imprisonment — Whether the trial judge conducted the trial in a fair and balanced way — Finding of the Court that taking into account the cumulative effect of the judge's criticism of the sincerity of the defense case and his question to the jury whether they wished to retire could not in accordance with the principles enunciated in Mears say that the defendant had the substance of a fair trial — Conviction was quashed — Appeal was allowed.
In the early hours of 20th June 1988, in the parish of Kingston, Jamaica, John Roberts was killed by a single stab wound, which penetrated his heart. The appellant (Crosdale) was arrested and charged with murder. The trial occupied three working days. On 22nd February 1989 the jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty of murder. Harrison J sentenced Crosdale to death. That sentence has since then been commuted to life imprisonment. On 30th April 1991 the Court of Appeal of Jamaica dismissed Crosdale's application for leave to appeal against his conviction for murder. On 16th July 1991 the Court of Appeal granted Crosdale conditional leave to appeal to Her Majesty in council, and certified points concerning the question whether a jury should be asked to withdraw during a submission of no case as being of general importance. Crosdale failed to comply with the condition imposed in respect of the leave granted, namely the preparation and dispatch of the record within sixty days. On 27th October 1993 special leave to appeal was granted.
The shape of the appeal can be described quite briefly. Three eyewitnesses were called by the prosecution. They testified that Crosdale was well known to them. They said that there had been an altercation involving the deceased's girlfriend. All three testified that Crosdale stabbed the deceased. The defendant gave evidence. He said that the fight had been between the deceased and his girlfriend. He denied that he stabbed the deceased. He said that he did not have a knife. On his case the deceased must have been stabbed by his girlfriend. The thrust of the grounds of appeal the Board was that the judge did not conduct the trial in a fair and balanced way. Mr. Mansfield Q.C., who appeared for Crosdale before the Board, relied on the cumulative effect of what he described as material irregularities committed by the trial judge. There were three principal features to this case. First, counsel relied on the fact that the judge insisted that a submission that Crosdale should be discharged at the end of the prosecution case be made in the presence of the jury. Secondly, counsel argued that the judge unfairly commented in his summing up on discrepancies between the case as put by defense counsel in cross-examination and the evidence of Crosdale. Thirdly, counsel relied on the fact that after a summing up in which the judge commented at some length on the inherent improbabilities in Crosdale's account the judge twice asked the jury whether they wish to retire. That, said counsel, was tantamount to saying to the jury that there was in reality nothing to discuss.
The thrust of the prosecution case can be explained briefly. The crime was committed on 20 th June 1988. The scene was a tenement yard at 23 Smith Lane in the Parish of Kingston. A number of individuals occupied rooms around the common yard. There was a standpipe in the yard. At about 6:00 a.m. on the day of the killing Patricia Cooper, one of the tenants, was washing plates at the standpipe. Crosdale, another tenant, approached the pipe. He said that Patricia Cooper had splashed water on him a exchange followed. He threatened to kill her. They went their respective rooms. Armed with a cutlass Crosdale invited Patricia Cooper to come out so that he could “chop her up” She refused to go out. Crosdale then went into his room, and emerged holding a knife under his shirt. In the meantime John Roberts, the boyfriend of Patricia Cooper, had arrived on the scene. The enraged Crosdale turned on him and stabbed him. Patricia Cooper ran to her boyfriend and Crosdale then stabbed her. She was hospitalized but recovered. That was how Patricia Cooper described the stabbing. Her evidence was supported by two other witnesses, namely Gloria Laxley, another tenant, and Katherine Hudson a 13 year old schoolgirl who was the daughter of a tenant.
The accounts of these three eye-witnesses were substantially the same. All three testified to the initial quarrel between Patricia Cooper and Crosdale, which culminated in Crosdale stabbing John Roberts. Not, surprisingly, in the context of a fast moving scene, there were some discrepancies between the accounts of the three witnesses. Those discrepancies were explored in cross-examination. Counsel unsuccessfully suggested to prosecution witnesses that there had been previous ill-feeling between him and the tenants; that the incident at the pipe happened on a previous occasion; and that the deceased also had a knife.
There was evidence from Detective Sergeant Fullerton that when he arrested Crosdale on the next day, 21 st June, and put to him the allegation that he stabbed the deceased, Crosdale replied to the effect that the deceased and his girlfriend had “fussed” with him.
So far Crosdale., obviously faced a strong prosecution case. But the defense claimed that there was an irreconcilable conflict between the evidence of the three eyewitnesses and the evidence of Dr. Roystan Clifford, a pathologist. It was common ground that the cause of death was a single stab wound to the heart. But all three eye witnesses said that after the deceased had been stabbed and after he fell, Crosdale stabbed him again. The pathologist testified that there was only one stab wound.
Claiming that this feature of the case made the three eyewitnesses accounts suspect, and unreliable, counsel submitted at the end of the prosecution case that there was no case against Crosdale. She invited the judge to hear her submissions in the absence of the jury. She explained that the merits of the defense would have to be canvassed. In accordance with the practice then prevailing in Jamaica, the judge declined to ask the jury to withdraw. The judge then heard submissions. The thrust of counsel's submissions was that the eyewitness accounts of repeated stabbing by Crosdale could not be reconciled with the medical evidence of a single stab wound. The judge ruled in the presence of the jury that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider.
Crosdale then testified. He said Patricia Cooper and her boyfriend were quarreling. He said the deceased was trying to hold her. She then stabbed the deceased. Crosdale ran to them and she stabbed at him. He jumped back and was stabbed in the leg. The other tenants attacked him and he ran from the premises. He did not say in evidence that there had been previous ill-feeling between him and the tenant. He did not say the incident at the pipe happened on a previous occasion. Most importantly, he did not say that John Roberts had a knife.
After counsel's speeches the judge proceeded to sum up the case jury. It is only necessary to refer to those parts of the summing up which are material to the grounds of appeal. The judge directed the jury to ignore what they had heard when counsel submitted that there was no case against the defendant. He told the jury that “… all the Court was saying there is that up to that point, there was sufficient evidence as led by the prosecution for the accused to answer to the charge”. He addressed the defense submission that there was an irreconcilable conflict in the prosecution case in as much as the eyewitnesses testified to the defendant stabbing the deceased several times as the pathologist said that there was only one stab wound. He suggested to the jury that the clue was that the eye witnesses merely testified that, after the initial stabbing, they again saw the defendant stabbing at the deceased without necessarily inflicting further wounds.
The judge commented at some length on undoubted discrepancies between the way in which Crosdale's counsel put his case in cross-examination and his evidence. There were three discrepancies. In oral evidence Crosdale denied that there had been (as cross-examination on his behalf had indicated) any ill-feeling between himself and other tenants. He also did not support the suggestion in cross-examination that the initial incident at the standpipe had taken place on a previous occasion. The judge commented as follows:–
“Now, you use those suggestions made to a witness, where the accused does not support it, to say whether or not you find there is any sincerity in the case for the defense as it is put to you.”
The third discrepancy was more important. Counsel suggested to witnesses that the deceased had a knife. Crosdale said nothing of kind in giving evidence. The judge commented as follows:–
“Here again is another suggestion, because here is Patricia being told by counsel for the defense that John had a knife that morning. Now, the accused never told you that he saw John with any knife that morning. Here again is another suggestion to the witness for the prosecution that John had a knife. Now, there is nothing from the accused to say that John had any knife, so you must ask yourselves the question, why is the defense so insincere, putting one thing to the prosecution and you don't hear anything about it again in the case? … So, you use your common sense as members of the jury and say where you find the truth lies. Because here is a suggestion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial