Langford v Dominica
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Carswell |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] UKPC 20 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 42 of 2004 |
| Date | 11 May 2005 |
[2005] UKPC 20
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Lord Hutton
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Baroness Hale of Richmond
Lord Carswell
Privy Council
[Delivered by Lord Carswell]
On 28 October 1998 at or shortly after 11 pm Ossie Osmond Charles was walking along Cork Street, a main thoroughfare of Roseau in Dominica. He was set upon by three men, who beat and kicked him with such violence that he sustained fatal injuries. He was taken to hospital, where resuscitation attempts were unsuccessful and he was pronounced dead at about 11.20 pm.
The appellants were arrested and charged with Charles' murder. They were tried before Cenac J and a jury and on 28 June 2000 the jury returned a verdict of guilty against each. The appellants were each sentenced to death by hanging. They both appealed to the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence. On 5 June 2001 the Court of Appeal by a majority (Matthew JA and d'Auvergne JA (Ag), Redhead JA dissenting) dismissed the appeals against conviction. They unanimously allowed the appeals against sentence, set aside the mandatory death sentences and referred the case back to the trial judge for re-sentencing. Langford was subsequently sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, but Freeman has not been re-sentenced. Both appellants appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, by special leave granted on 12 July 2004.
A little earlier that evening, at or shortly after 10.20 pm, Freeman entered the Club de Cave on Kennedy Avenue, Roseau and became involved in a fight with one Laurie Jno Baptiste. The proprietor of the bar Edgar Berridge broke up the fight by seizing hold of Freeman, while Ossie Charles at Berridge's request held on to Baptiste. Freeman then left the bar, being observed as he emerged at about 10.50 pm by Police Constable Drigo. A couple of minutes later he was seen by PC Drigo running along the Dame Eugenia Charles Boulevard. There is no evidence to suggest that Freeman was at this time in the company of Langford or any other person.
The main eye witness to the killing of Ossie Charles was Joseph Alexander, who was driving his car along Cork Street in a westerly direction as the incident commenced. He said that as he drove along the street, at a time which he put at about 11.30 pm, he saw three men running up Cork Street in an easterly direction pursuing Charles. They seized him and started beating him with stones which they held in their hands. Alexander stopped about the front of the Eugenia Charles building, at the back of a Suzuki minibus parked at the mouth of Cross Lane, a small street or alley which runs from the east side of the Eugenia Charles building to Field's Lane. The three assailants and Charles were then on the left side of the road, "under Miss Charles' office." Alexander reversed his car to a point by the house of the former President, Mr Seignoret. The distance between that point and the fight was estimated by him at 150 feet and by a police witness at 120 feet.
There he stayed in his car observing the fight, which lasted for a period which he put at half an hour. Alexander said that he could hear Charles asking his assailants why they were hitting him. He remained on his feet until they knocked him to the ground and, in Alexander's words, kicked him under the minibus. There they left him and ran up Cork Street in the direction of Alexander's vehicle. One of them, whom he named as Langford, then came back to where Charles was lying and, as Alexander put it in his evidence, "pulled out a knife and passed the knife on his back". He could not, however, see if there was any contact between the knife and Charles' person. Alexander drove down to where Charles lay and spoke to him, receiving a reply. He went to a telephone and contacted the police, who summoned an ambulance. Police Constables Drigo and Ferdinand, who were on patrol, arrived at the scene shortly before the arrival of the ambulance, and Pc Drigo gave the time of their arrival as being at or shortly after 11.15 pm.
Joseph Alexander stated in evidence that he identified two of the assailants as the appellants. He claimed that he saw them clearly and was able to recognise them because he was close to them. He said that he had known Freeman for about three years, though he agreed that he had told the magistrate that he had known him for about a year or so. He stated that he and Langford had gone to school together and that he saw him often thereafter. The witness was not asked at what point he was situated when he made the identification of the appellants, but said that he was able to recognise each of them because he was close to them.
Alexander accepted in his evidence that he told Inspector Laudat that all three assailants were "rasta guys", that is, that they had rasta dreadlocks. He gave several descriptions of the clothing worn by these men, and it was brought out in evidence that the descriptions varied between his police statement, his evidence to the magistrate and his testimony at trial, and that they did not coincide with those given by the other eye-witness Roselind Bridet. It is not necessary for the purposes of this judgment to set out the details of the variations, it being sufficient to note that they were quite considerable.
Roselyn Bridet stated in her evidence that she then lived in Fields Lane. Shortly before 11 pm on 28 October 1998 she was returning home from a walk. When she was in Cross Lane, in front of Julia's Boutique, she saw three young men running from Fields Lane into Cross Lane, who must have passed close to her in Cross Lane. When they got to Cork Street they engaged in a fight with another person, who had been walking up Cork Street. They beat him for about ten minutes, then ran up Cork Street, leaving him on the ground. Ms Bridet, who said that she had stood watching the fight from a block away, went to the place where the victim was lying, where she recognised him, with the aid of light from a flashlight, as Ossie Charles, whom she had known all her life.
Ms Bridet said that she did not recognise any of the three men, though she knew Langford. She was able to describe their clothing and stated that two of the men had locks, one shorter than the other, and the third had a flat cut. She said that she did not see their faces, as their backs were turned to her. She demonstrated in court the distance from which she had seen the men when they were closest to her, which presumably was when they passed her in Cross Lane. She said that there were no street lights around where she stopped and saw the incident. Her inability to recognise either Langford or Ossie Charles must, however, raise questions about the sufficiency of the light at the scene of the fight.
Inspector Michael Laudat deposed that there were three street lights in the vicinity. He described the first as being "in the angle of King's Lane and Cork Street in the vicinity of former President Sir Clarence Seignoret's home". The second was "in the angle of Old Street and Cork Street", but this cannot be seen in any of the photographs, possibly because it was a little distance into Old Street. This appears to have been the light which he later described as being by the Tobacco Factory and lighting Cork Street. The third was in Old Street in the vicinity of Barclay's Bank, but the Board had no evidence of the location of the bank premises. Alexander stated that light was coming from "under Miss Charles' office", but Police Constable Shillingford, who took the photographs, agreed in cross-examination that in photograph number 6 there was no light under the building and Inspector Laudat said on the three occasions that he visited the scene there were no lights in the area of Miss Charles' building. There was an illuminated sign outside the drug store immediately opposite that building which was the source of some light. Inspector Laudat also said that a light inside the PHIA store was reflecting on Cork Street. Alexander said that after he reversed his vehicle lights were on full beam. Ms Bridet said that she could see how the men were dressed from "the vehicle lights and lights from the business places", referring in particular to the drug store.
At an early stage Alexander identified Langford to the police by his nickname "Flex" and officers went to his home at approximately 3.45 am on 29 October 1998. When informed that he had been identified at the scene, Langford averred that he was not there, a denial which he maintained throughout the investigation and trial. On 30 October he was confronted with Alexander, who repeated his identification of Langford at the scene, but Langford continued to deny that he had been there or had been involved in the incident.
Alexander's identification of Freeman appears to have been to some extent less positive. It emerged in the course of the evidence that he had not actually named him in the first place. He seems to have called him "that rasta guy" and described him in a statement as a man whom he knew very well, whom he knew to be living at Murphy's Lane and whom he sometimes saw at Canefield, which prompted Inspector Laudat to identify the suspect as Freeman. In the early hours of 29 October Inspector Laudat went to Freeman's home, but did not find him there. Freeman was not apprehended until 6 November 1998, when he was found at the home of one Kerwin Benjamin. He was hiding under a bed and had cut his locks. He claimed to have been afraid, since he had heard that the police were looking for him and feared that he would be beaten if arrested by them. He wanted to delay his arrest until the arrival from New York of his mother, who could arrange for a lawyer for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yourrick Furlonge Appellant v The Queen Respondent [ECSC]
...in relation to this issue were adequate. Mills and Others v R (1995) 46 WIR 240 applied; Leroy Langford and Another v The State [2005] UKPC 20 followed. 2. While it may have been prudent for the trial judge to address the jury on the allegations that were put to the appellant in the Ques......
-
Carlton Bedminster Careem Bedminster v The Queen
... ... Langford & Anor v The State (Dominica) 2009 UKPC 20 and Fuller v The State (1995) 52 WIR 42 (1995) 52 WIR 42 at 433 applied. 6. That ... ...
-
Urban St. Brice Appellant v The Queen Respondent [ECSC]
...on the Turnbull principles. The statements by the Privy Council in Leroy Langford and Mwanga Freeman v The State of Dominica, [2005] UKPC 20; [2005] 66 WIR 194 and in Garnett Edwards v The Queen [2006] UKPC 23; (2006) 69 WIR 360 followed; the judgments of Sir David Simmons, CJ, in the Di......
-
Everett Rodney v R
...caution, the authorities suggest, Mr Rodney could have his conviction set aside (see R v Vye [1993] 1 WLR 471, Langton v The State (2000) 56 WIR 491, Samuel Robie v R [2011] UKPC 43, and Chris Brooks v R [2012] JMCA Crim 5 (at paragraph 54)). 38 Mr Johnson did not provide any authority to......