Grant v State

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
JudgeLord Bingham of Cornhill
Judgment Date16 January 2006
Neutral Citation[2006] UKPC 2
Date16 January 2006
Docket NumberAppeal No. 30 of 2005
CourtPrivy Council
Steven Grant
The Queen

[2006] UKPC 2

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Lord Hutton

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Baroness Hale of Richmond

Lord Carswell

Appeal No. 30 of 2005

Privy Council

[Delivered by Lord Bingham of Cornhill]


At about 4.30 am on 18 April 1999 the appellant shot and killed Kymani Bailey, a 17 year-old student, in a car park off Knutsford Boulevard in Kingston. He was charged with murder, tried before McIntosh J and a jury and, on 28 February 2003, convicted. At the trial, despite defence objections, the unsworn written statement of an absent witness, Xavier Newton-Bryant, was admitted against the appellant, on the application of the Crown, under section 31D of the Evidence Act. The unsworn written statement of another absent witness, Michael Kinglock, was not admitted. On appeal against conviction, the appellant challenged the constitutionality of section 31D and also the trial judge's exercise of discretion to admit the evidence of Bryant, and to admit the evidence of Bryant without that of Kinglock. The Court of Appeal (Bingham and Walker JJA, and Harrison JA(Ag)) rejected both challenges in reasoned judgments delivered on 12 July 2004. Before the Board, both challenges have been repeated. They are resisted by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Attorney General has intervened (as he did in the Court of Appeal) to address the constitutional challenge. The appeal raises important questions on the constitutionality of section 31D and exercise of the judicial power to admit unsworn written statements of absent witnesses.

The facts


The area of factual dispute at the trial was, and remains, very limited. Most of the salient facts relied on by the Crown were common ground. The appellant was the licensed owner of a 9 mm Sig Sauer semi-automatic pistol. During the incident early on the morning of 18 April he fired 13 shots which struck the deceased. Two of those shots entered his body from the front, striking the thigh and the scrotum. Those wounds, if treated, were not of themselves life-threatening. Eleven of the shots entered the body of the deceased through different parts of his back, when he had his back towards the appellant. The firing of each shot required a separate pull on the trigger of 1.5 kilograms. Hollow point bullets were used. The cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds. The deceased died in a matter of minutes. The issue for the jury's decision was whether, as the appellant contended, he had fired these shots in lawful defence of himself. That required the jury to address three questions. First, before and at the time of the shooting, was the appellant subject to a threat or attack, or what he perceived to be such? Secondly, if so, was the threat or attack such, or perceived to be such, as to justify the use of reasonable force in self-defence? Thirdly, if so, did the force used by the appellant go beyond what could in all the circumstances, making allowance for the emergency of the moment, be justified? It was of course for the Crown to rebut this defence, if properly raised, beyond reasonable doubt and not for the defence to make it good. The partial defence of provocation was not advanced by the defence, but the trial judge correctly treated it as potentially raised by the evidence, and properly left it to the jury.


The appellant drove straight from the car park where the shooting occurred to the Half-way Tree Police Station in St Andrew where he handed over his pistol and volunteered a statement, which was recorded. In this statement the appellant said that at about 4.15 am he left a bar to return to his van in the car park. As he approached the van he stopped to urinate against a wall. He was zipping up his trousers and heard someone behind him say "Pussy hole, don't move". He turned round and saw a man pointing a gun at him. The man was to his right. He pulled out his fully-loaded firearm from his waistband, pointed it at the man and began to squeeze the trigger. He did not know how many shots he fired or if any caught the man. The man ran to the edge of the wall and continued to the other side, where he was out of the appellant's sight. The appellant followed the man and looked around the wall where the man, still holding the gun, was facing him. The appellant pointed the gun in the man's direction and squeezed the trigger again. He did not know how many shots were fired, or if any caught the man. After firing this second time, the appellant noticed a group of people running from Knutsford Boulevard towards where he was. To avoid the crowd, he walked to his van and drove to the police station. He had never seen the other man before, and he would not recognise him again. It was dark where the appellant was standing, but moderately lighted where the man stood. His attention had been drawn to the gun in the man's hand, and he had not noticed anything else.

The trial


At trial, the Crown called only one witness who saw any part of the shooting incident. This was Constable Wynter, who testified that he was along Knutsford Boulevard between 3.30 and 4.30 am on 18 April, near the Asylum Nightclub, off duty. He heard 5 or 6 of what he described as explosions sounding like gunshots, coming from the direction of a car park. He walked to see what was happening, and while doing so heard another set of explosions, sounding like those he had heard before and coming from the same direction. He started to run to the car park which was surrounded by buildings, one of them the Jamaica Football Federation building. There were vehicles in the car park, and he saw a man in a crouching position on the piazza of the Federation building, with his arms around the mid section of his body and slightly bending forward. After that he heard no explosions. He then heard a voice behind him, and noticed a person who went to a dump truck and drove off. Wynter made a call to the police by radio, returned to his car and tried without success to follow the truck which had driven off. On returning to the car park, he saw the man he had earlier seen in a crouching position lying face downwards, with gunshot wounds to his back, gasping. He saw nothing in the man's hand. Other police officers were called to the scene. They saw the deceased lying on the ground wounded. They found no weapon, and interviewed no potential witnesses. None of these officers witnessed the shooting incident.


Two statements had, however, been made to the police by witnesses who said they had seen the incident or part of it. The first statement was made by Xavier Newton-Bryant, a 40 year-old security officer and former police officer, on 30 April 1999. He said that he was on duty on the ground floor of the Football Federation building when he heard an explosion which he recognised as a gunshot. He became very alert. Six to eight seconds later he heard six more gunshot explosions in rapid succession. He went to the window, moved the blinds and looked out. He saw a man come into view from his left. He was staggering and holding his mid-section. He then turned on the side walk and fell on his face in front of the building about five or six feet from where Bryant was standing. He then saw another man coming towards the man on the ground with a semi-automatic pistol in his hand. He was standing about five feet from the injured man when he pointed the gun at the man on the ground and fired seven more shots in rapid succession. The man was still lying on his face. Bryant telephoned the police and reported what he had seen. On returning to the window he did not see the man who had fired the shots, but the other man was still lying on the ground. He did not see the man who was shot with a gun, and did not see anyone pick up a gun from the ground (although onlookers were picking up spent shells and bullets).


Michael Kinglock, a 32 year-old driver and night watchman, gave a written statement to the police on 7 May 1999. He said that on the morning of 18 April he was on duty in one of the buildings overlooking the car park. At about 4.15 am he went on to the third floor balcony to look over the car park, where there was little activity. He then saw a man walking towards the Football Federation building. The man stopped at the side of the building and urinated. He then saw another man walk up to the man who was urinating and heard him say "Pussy hole, don't move", holding his hand in a position pointing to the man who was urinating. The latter appeared as if he was pulling up the zip on his trousers, but came up with a gun instead and fired several shots in the direction of the man who had walked up behind him. That man turned around and ran. Kinglock saw something dropped, but did not know who it fell from. He saw several persons running to the car park. The man who had fired the shots ran in the same direction as the other man. Kinglock then saw a white van which reversed and sped away. From Kinglock's position he could not see what further transpired at the front of the Football Federation building, and he never saw either of them again after they ran from his sight. Only once did he hear several shots fired from the gun held by the man who was urinating.


Before the preliminary inquiry was held in this case, the Crown gave notice to the defence that it intended to put in evidence at the inquiry the statements of Bryant and Kinglock, of which copies were attached. Bryant, and possibly Kinglock also, was warned to attend the inquiry, but neither of them did so and it seems that the statements were not read to the court at that stage. The names of these witnesses were not included on the back of the indictment. After the inquiry and before the trial, the Crown again gave the defence a notice of its intention to adduce the statements of Bryant and Kinglock. The trial began...

To continue reading

Request your trial
74 cases
  • Stubbs v The Queen
    • United Kingdom
    • Privy Council
    • 2 November 2020 confirmed in the judge's earlier ruling of 5 July 2013. 111 As Lord Bingham stated in the Privy Council decision in Grant v The Queen [2006] UKPC 2; [2006] 1 AC 1, para 12 it is a “fundamental common law principle” that: “…the evidence against the accused at a criminal trial should be g......
  • Leslie Moodie v R
    • Jamaica
    • Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
    • 31 July 2015
    ...relied on Lord Bingham's observation in the decision of the Privy Council on appeal from this court in Steven Grant v The Queen [2006] UKPC 2, para.25: ‘… Plainly the prosecutor has a discretion. It is a discretion to be exercised by the prosecutor acting as a minister of justice, in the in......
  • Jerome Dixon v R
    • Jamaica
    • Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
    • 29 July 2022 indeed a duty resting on the prosecution and a trial judge to ensure the overall fairness of proceedings (see Steven Grant v The Queen [2006] UKPC 2, paragraph [26]). Also, it has been recognised that the prosecution has a duty to disclose all relevant material in its possession, and to......
  • The Hon Mrs Portia Simpson-Miller and Others v Attorney-General and DPP
    • Jamaica
    • Supreme Court (Jamaica)
    • 20 September 2013 that the constitutionality of a parliamentary enactment is presumed unless it is shown to be unconstitutional ( Grant v The Queen [2006] UKPC 2 cited). They went further to make the important point that the Constitution must be given a broad and purposive construction ( Minister of Home......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 firm's commentaries
  • Update: 'Tourre' Extends SEC’s Reach For Foreign Transactions Involving Domestic Offerings
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 30 July 2013 disclose that hedge fund manager John Paulson helped to select, and then shorted, the portfolio of securities underlying the ABACUS 2007-AC1 synthetic collateralized debt obligation at issue in that matter.2 Tourre moved for summary judgment, arguing that he could not be held liable for ......
  • SEC Re-Proposes Rule To Prohibit Material Conflicts Of Interest In Securitizations
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 2 February 2023
    ...621 of Dodd-Frank was enacted in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008 to prohibit transactions such as the infamous Abacus 2007-AC1 synthetic collateralized debt obligation (CDO), which was designed to fail so that a particular hedge fund investor that had participated in selecti......
  • Second Circuit Clarifies The Circumstances In Which Presumptions Can Be Used To Support Federal Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuits
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 30 August 2023
    ...action alleging that Goldman improperly marketed investments in a privately-offered collateralized debt obligation vehicle called Abacus 2007 AC-1 without disclosing that a hedge fund that helped select assets for the vehicle was at the same time shorting those assets. Not surprisingly, pla......
  • Financial Industry Week In Review - 03-17-2014
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 26 March 2014
    ...into Goldman Sachs and Tourre because of allegations that they misled investors in a synthetic collateralized debt obligation, Abacus 2007-AC1, created in 2007. (Goldman Sachs reached a separate settlement in 2010.) Tourre allegedly failed to disclose to Abacus investors that Paulson & ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 books & journal articles
  • The Duplicity of Protection—Prosecuting Frightened Victims: An Act of Gender-Based Violence
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 76-1, February 2012
    • 1 February 2012 not an absolute one. That follows from the caselaw of the ECtHR and is the position accepted by the Privy Council in Grantv The State [2007] 1 AC 1 at paragraphs 17(1) and 19.90Domestic violence and the right of the victim to safety, life and protec-tion have done little to shape the int......
  • Subject Index
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 15-4, October 2011
    • 1 October 2011
    .... . . . . . .205Gnitrow Ltd v Cape plc [2000] 3 All ER 763,[2000]1 WLR2327 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240Grant vR [2007] 1AC 1, PC. . . . . . . . . . 97, 98, 103,111–112, 114Green vBerge 354 F3d675 (7th Cir2004) . . . . 309Gregg vScott [2005] UKHL2 . . . . . . . . .......
  • Absent Witnesses and the UK Supreme Court: Judicial Deference as Judicial Dialogue?
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 14-3, July 2010
    • 1 July 2010
    ...of probability, but the lower court hadnot made a conclusion in that regard.63 RvTahery [2006] EWCA Crim 2078 (decisive evidence).64 [2006] UKPC 2, [2007] 1 AC 1 at[17(3)] (admission of important absent witness evidence not a groundfor appeal; appeal allowed for other reasons).65 B. Malik, ......
  • Court of Appeal
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 72-4, August 2008
    • 1 August 2008
    ...the appellantcould interrogate the evidence of the deceased complainant). See alsothe decision of the Privy Council in Grant v The Queen [2006] UKPC 2.Mention should also be made of what appears to be a contrastingdecision in Crown Prosecution Service vCE [2006] EWCA Crim 1410,where, in ord......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT