Lescene Edwards v The Queen

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
JudgeSir David Bean
Judgment Date04 April 2022
Neutral Citation[2022] UKPC 11
Docket NumberPrivy Council Appeal No 0097 of 2019
CourtPrivy Council
Lescene Edwards
(Appellant)
and
The Queen
(Respondent)

[2022] UKPC 11

before

Lord Hodge

Lord Leggatt

Lord Burrows

Lady Rose

Sir David Bean

Privy Council Appeal No 0097 of 2019

Privy Council

Appellant

Kirsty Brimelow QC Graeme Hall (Instructed by Simons Muirhead & Burton LLP)

Respondent

Tom Poole QC (Instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (London))

Sir David Bean
1

On 5 September 2003 Aldonna Harris-Vasquez died of a single gunshot wound to the head in the bathroom of her home at 5 Pinnacle Close in the parish of Saint Andrew. Lescene Edwards, the father of her twin children, was charged with her murder. His case was that she had committed suicide. His trial for murder took place just over ten years later before Miss Smith J and a jury. On 31 October 2013 he was convicted of murder.

2

Mr Edwards gave notice of appeal. The hearing before the Court of Appeal of Jamaica (Brooks and Sinclair-Haynes JJA and P Williams JA (AG)) lasted seven working days, from 18–26 April 2016. Some 21 months later, on 19 January 2018, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment dismissing Mr Edwards's appeal against conviction.

3

On 1 July 2019 the Court of Appeal (Phillips, F Williams and P Williams JJA) granted final leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council, pursuant to section 110 of the Constitution of Jamaica on the question of whether the ten-year delay between the incident and the trial contravened Mr Edwards's rights under the Constitution. Mr Edwards subsequently filed an application for permission to appeal on further grounds, including an application for an extension of time and for permission to adduce fresh evidence on the appeal. By order of 28 April 2021 the Board (Lords Lloyd-Jones, Hamblen and Burrows) granted permission to appeal on the further grounds. The application to adduce fresh evidence was adjourned to the hearing of the substantive appeal.

The incident and its aftermath
4

The prosecution's case was that on 5 September 2003, Mr Edwards, then a constable of police, was visiting Mrs Harris-Vasquez at her home at 5 Pinnacle Close in the parish of Saint Andrew. He is the father of her twin children, who were born before her marriage to a man who lived outside Jamaica. Despite her marriage, Mr Edwards and Mrs Harris-Vasquez, who was called “Patricia” at home, continued to have an intimate relationship.

5

That day, Mr Edwards went to visit Mrs Harris-Vasquez at about 11:00 am. While they were alone together in Mrs Harris-Vasquez's bedroom, Mrs Maud Harris, who is Mrs Harris-Vasquez's mother, and with whom Mrs Harris-Vasquez shared the premises, dozed in the living-room of the house. Mrs Harris was awoken by a loud noise. Mr Edwards then came to her asking where Patricia was. She answered saying that he was the one who was with Patricia. After this answer he went back into the bedroom and returned to her. He was crying. She then followed Mr Edwards to the bathroom door, which was closed. He opened the door, which opened outward into a passage, and she saw Mrs Harris-Vasquez's body on the bathroom floor. Mrs Harris heard Mr Edwards say that “the girl” had used his gun to kill herself. Mrs Harris then fainted.

6

Mr Edwards called the police. The first officer to arrive was Sergeant Hyacinth Brown. Other officers followed shortly afterwards. A notebook was found on Mrs Harris-Vasquez's dresser in her bedroom. The notebook was open to a page, on which was written what seemed to be, a suicide note. It read:

“Lescene I love you always. Take care of my children. Tell my babies I love them always. Tell my family I got a vision that it's my time and that if I go Ivy will be okay and Peaches will be fine too. If someone should go let it be me. Tell my mother all her dreams indicate that is my time. For the family, love you all. Tell my husband that I love him too”

7

One of the factual disputes at trial concerned the circumstances in which the notebook was found. Sgt Brown was not available to give evidence at the trial, having apparently emigrated. Her witness statement, made a few days after the incident, indicated that she had observed the notebook when checking the room. However, the investigating officer who gave evidence at the trial, Detective Inspector Phipps, alleged that Sgt Brown had told him that it was the defendant who drew her attention to the notebook.

8

The police took custody of that notebook, two other notebooks and a University of Technology form, the firearm and several other items. They also took photographs of the scene. Swabs were taken of Mr Edwards's hands, as well as those of the deceased. His clothing was also taken for examination. The body was taken to the morgue. The police then allowed the scene to be cleaned. On 11 September 2003, Mrs Harris-Vasquez's clothing was taken from the morgue for examination.

9

The notebooks, swabs, clothing and other material were sent to the police forensic experts. Testing of the clothing of both Mrs Harris-Vasquez and Mr Edwards, and of the swabs taken of their respective hands, did not reveal the presence of any gunshot residue (GSR).

10

The day after the incident DI Phipps showed the Defendant the suicide note and asked him to write down the words on the page ten times. He did not seek any specimens of Mr Edwards's handwriting from prior to the incident. DI Phipps gave evidence that this was the first time he recollects having taken a specimen of handwriting.

11

A post-mortem was conducted on 11 September by Dr Seshaiah. He was not available to give evidence at the trial as he had emigrated in 2009: Dr Prasad gave evidence in his place. He confirmed that the trajectory of the bullet was upwards, backwards, and to the left, and that it was a close contact wound (that is to say the weapon had been pressed hard against the right temple). He could not say whether the wound was the result of suicide or murder.

12

On 12 September 2003 a government forensic scientist, Marcia Dunbar, conducted testing on swabs taken by Supt Hibbert from the hands of the Defendant and the deceased. None of these revealed any GSR. Nor did Mr Edwards's shirt. Nor did the deceased's nightdress (although this had not been supplied to the police until 11 or 12 September 2003, and according to Ms Dunbar it might be that during storage in the morgue moisture could have had some effect on the clothing).

13

On 23 October 2003 Mr Edwards was interviewed by Assistant Commissioner of Police Gause and DI Phipps in the presence of Mr Edwards's attorney. A question and answer format was used with ACP Gause asking the questions and Phipps transcribing the answers. Some of the questions raised allegations which were not the subject of evidence from any witnesses. These included the suggestion that Mr Edwards was upset by the deceased's marriage to another man; that he thought she had deceived him by telling him a lie about who she was going to marry; and that the two of them had had a fight in the course of which he had received an injury to his eye.

Evidence at the trial
14

Mrs Harris-Vasquez's mood, in the period before her death, was also the subject of evidence placed before the jury. Various relatives spoke, with varying opinions, to her mood on her wedding day and in the week prior to her death. Mrs Harris testified, however, that earlier in the morning of the day of her death, Mrs Harris-Vasquez had a conversation with Mrs Harris, in which Mrs Harris spoke of having had a dream that she would lose one of her children. Mrs Harris testified that during that conversation Mrs Harris-Vasquez appeared to be crying. Mrs Harris also said that her daughter and Mr Edwards did not have any quarrels or difficulties. Mrs Harris said that she also had a good relationship with him.

15

The prosecution's handwriting expert, retired Senior Superintendent of Police Mr Carl Major, who examined the suicide note, handwriting in the notebooks and on the University of Technology form as well as the sample handwriting of Mr Edwards, gave evidence at the trial that in his opinion the suicide note had been written by Mr Edwards.

16

Mr Major agreed, however, with the view expressed in one of the works on questioned documents by Albert S. Osborn that handwriting assessments should start “not with an examination of the questioned writing itself but with a careful study of the standard writing with which it is finally to be compared” (in this case Mr Edwards's natural or ordinary handwriting). He also agreed that the disputed handwriting should not be shown to the person providing the specimen but the words in it should instead be dictated. Nevertheless, his conclusion was that the suicide note and the specimen handwriting from Mr Edwards were written by the same person, whereas the names “Aldonna Harris” and “Aldonna Vasquez” written in other notebooks which were the property of the deceased were written by someone else. It does not appear that Mr Major had any other examples of the handwriting of the deceased.

17

The defence instructed Mr Charles Haywood, a forensic document examiner working in Florida. He told the jury that in his opinion on an examination of the relevant documents Mr Edwards could neither be identified nor eliminated as the writer of the suicide note. The evidence in his view was inconclusive. He considered that the writer of the contents of 12 sheets photocopied from one of the notebooks found in Mrs Harris-Vasquez's room, which was said to be her notebook, could likewise not be excluded as the author of the suicide note. Mr Haywood criticised the method of collecting the sample handwriting from Mr Edwards as being not in accordance with best practice.

18

Mr Edwards gave sworn testimony in his defence. His case was that when he went to the house, Mrs Harris-Vasquez and he talked about their respective future plans. She was to be going away to join her husband and Mr Edwards was also planning to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Rayon Williams v R
    • Jamaica
    • Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
    • 19 novembre 2022
    ...it and take account of such evidence” (see also Lundy v The Queen [2013] UKPC 28, para.120 and the recently decided case of Lescene Edwards v The Queen [2022] UKPC 11). In the latter case, the Privy Council affirmed “the interest of justice” as the overriding 89 The exercise of this very ......
  • Alton Baker v R
    • Jamaica
    • Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
    • 8 avril 2022
    ...a miscarriage of justice has occurred. 71 We wish to point out, at this juncture, that in the recent Privy Council's decision of Lescene Edwards v The Queen (PC) [2022] UKPC 11, their Lordships did not reverse this court on this issue (see para. 33 of the judgment that sets out the ground ......
  • Nardis Maynard v The Queen
    • St Kitts & Nevis
    • Court of Appeal (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
    • 10 juin 2022
    ...Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Saint Christopher and Nevis) Act, Cap. 3.11, Revised Laws of Saint Christopher and Nevis 2009; Lescene Edwards v The Queen [2022] UKPC 11 applied; Lundy v The Queen [2013] UKPC 28 applied. 3. In relying on the conduct of defence counsel as a ground of appe......
  • Nardis Maynard v The Queen
    • St Kitts & Nevis
    • Court of Appeal (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
    • 10 juin 2022
    ...Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Saint Christopher and Nevis) Act, Cap. 3.11, Revised Laws of Saint Christopher and Nevis 2009; Lescene Edwards v The Queen [2022] UKPC 11 applied; Lundy v The Queen [2013] UKPC 28 applied. 3. In relying on the conduct of defence counsel as a ground of appe......
  • 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