Nimrod Miguel v The State
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | LORD CLARKE |
| Judgment Date | 15 June 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] UKPC 14 |
| Date | 15 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No 0037 of 2010 |
| Court | Privy Council |
[2011] UKPC 14
Lord Rodger
Lord Brown
Lord Kerr
Lord Clarke
Lord Dyson
Privy Council
Appellant
James Dingemans QC
Daniel Tivadar
(Instructed by Simons Muirhead & Burton)
Respondent
Peter Knox QC
(Instructed by Charles Russell LLP)
Introduction
On 30 January 2008, before Brook J ('the judge') and a jury, the appellant was convicted of the murder of Ramesh Lalchan on 30 or 31 December 2003. He was sentenced to death. He appealed to the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago but on 27 February 2009 his appeal was dismissed by Hamel-Smith, John and Weekes JAA. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council subsequently granted leave to appeal to the Privy Council against both conviction and sentence.
Four grounds of appeal have been advanced against conviction. They relate to: (1) the directions given by the judge on the issue of withdrawal; (2) the admission of evidence said to have been obtained in breach of the Judges' Rules 1965; (Trinidad and Tobago Ministry of Home Affairs Circular 1/1965); (3) the directions given by the judge with regard to written and oral statements made by the appellant; and (4) the approach to and the application of the proviso by the Court of Appeal. A single ground of appeal is advanced against the mandatory life sentence imposed on the appellant, namely that such a sentence for felony murder is unconstitutional. The Board will consider first the appeal against conviction.
The prosecution case
The prosecution case can be shortly summarised in this way. The deceased, Ramesh Lalchan, lived in Rio Claro. Some time after 10 pm on 30 December 2003 he left a friend's house by car. The following day at about 8 am his lifeless body was found on a track at Fairfield. When the police arrived, they observed that the deceased's hands and feet had been bound with shoelaces and his mouth tied with a red cloth. Next to his head they discovered three spent cartridges which appeared to have been discharged from a .32 calibre firearm. The post mortem examination showed that death was due to head injuries, although injuries had also been sustained to the neck of the deceased. During the autopsy two bullets were removed from his head.
At about 2 pm that afternoon, the wife of the deceased, Shaffina Lalchan, called his cell phone. A male voice, which she did not recognize, answered "kinda fumbling to talk". On 2 January 2004 the deceased's car was discovered by the police in Princess Town. The last digit on the number plate, which was 7, had been obliterated. When the car was inspected the next day, the boot proved impossible to open from the outside but access was gained to it from inside. It contained a pair of registration plates. Fingerpint impressions were taken from them which on later examination turned out to be those of the appellant.
The appellant was arrested about 5 am on 24 January 2004 in an abandoned house. He identified himself as Brian Miguel. He was cautioned and informed of his rights but he made no requests. He was taken to the Princes Town Police Station and placed in a cell. About 10. 40 or 10.50 that morning he was taken to the Homicide Office at San Fernando by Officer Renwick and placed in an enclosed air-conditioned room equipped with cushioned chairs. About 11.23 am Acting Sergeant Hamid identified himself to the appellant, told him what he was investigating, cautioned him and informed him of his legal rights. The appellant made no requests, denied having any knowledge of the crime and replied "I doh know about that, I was never there, I didn't kill nobody". Hamid began to interview him, but after five minutes he stopped when the appellant told him, on being asked, that he hadn't eaten. He was then given a meal of rice, chowmein and corned beef, and a glass of water.
The appellant was interviewed again at about 12.40 pm the same day by Officers Ramdeo and Renwick. Renwick drew the appellant's attention to a large print document entitled 'Notice to Persons in Custody' posted on the wall of that office and read it aloud to him. It gave information about a prisoner's legal rights and privileges under the Judges' Rules. Renwick asked him whether he understood what it meant and he said that he did. In this interview he denied any knowledge or involvement in the murder. He said "It was not me, I wasn't there, I doh really lime wid nobody in New Grant."
On the next day, 25 January 2004, at about 12.25 pm, while the appellant was being taken back to the Homicide Office at San Fernando, he told Hamid and Renwick "I just ready to talk to all ah yuh." So they again introduced themselves, told him the nature of their investigation, cautioned him and informed of his legal rights. He said: "I really ready to talk to all yuh". He then gave an account of the robbery of the deceased's car and the subsequent killing, at the end of which the police asked some further questions and also whether he would like to make a written statement. He said he was ready to do so, and was again cautioned and reminded of his rights. The police made a note of the interview, but they did not ask him to sign it.
The appellant then dictated a statement which was recorded by Hamid in the presence of Renwick and a Justice of the Peace called Ezra Dube, who authenticated it. In both his written and his oral statements, the appellant admitted that he and four others (Miguel, Shane, Macca and Terry) had decided to find a car to rob. They drove along for a while until they came across the deceased in his car, at which point Shane and Miguel jumped out, got into the deceased's car, and drove it to Princes Town, while the appellant and the others followed behind. When they reached some cane fields, they stopped. Miguel took the deceased into "the bush" and tied his hands and feet with a shoe lace, while the appellant and Shane searched the car and found some cocaine. Terry then drove off on his own. The statement continued:
"Ah lil while after Miguel come back Shane ask him, if the man mouth tie and he say nah. I end up telling him I go go and tie the man, and I gone in the road and tie the man mouth, when ah done ah see Miguel come back with the gun and he tell me to buss one in the man head ah tell him ah not shooting nobody and I walk off and Miguel end up shooting the man. We end up coming up New Grant with the blue car, I drop off and gone home …"
In his written statement, the appellant, in describing the shooting, did not repeat that he "walk off" before the shooting. However, in answer to a subsequent question, he did say that he was "walking back" when the deceased was shot (see question and answer 11 below).
The appellant said that the next day he was present when Shane and another man went off to get some replacement number plates for the car. He helped them take off the old number plates and put them in the boot while they put on the new ones. He also said that the deceased's car had two cell phones in it, that he had answered one of them when it rang the day after the incident and that he had heard a woman's voice at the other end.
After taking the written statement, the officers asked the appellant some 20 questions and recorded the answers. They included the following questions and answers:
"4. Q: When Shane say we going to get a car what did he mean?
A. That was we going an put ah gun by ah man head an taking he car.
11. Q: What happened to the man when he got shot?
A: I was done turn an walking back me eh see what happen with the man.
13. Q: Was anyone else armed?
A: Nah nobody else me eh see no more gun.
17. Q: You spoke about a number plate they got for the car do you know where they got it?
A: Nah I eh know where they get it from, and I eh know the number".
After the police had taken the statement, the appellant was told that he could correct, alter or add anything, and Hamid read it aloud to him in the presence of the Renwick and the JP. When he had finished, the appellant said: "It was good so". It was then handed to him to read aloud, which he did, and he signed it at the bottom of each page and initialled the handwritten corrections "NM" on pages 1, 2 and 4. He also signed and dated the JP's certificate, which confirmed that the statement had been recorded in his presence, and that he (the appellant) had confirmed to him that no threats or promises had been made and that the statement had been made voluntarily. The appellant admitted that he signed this certificate, but he disputed that he had read the statement aloud. He said he could not even read at the time.
The next day, 26 January 2004, Renwick told the appellant that he would be charged with murder. He was again cautioned (this time under rule III of the Judges' Rules, the previous cautions having been under rule II), and informed of his legal rights and privileges. He replied: "I just want to say I didn't kill nobody". He was then charged. Once again he was cautioned and reminded of his legal rights and privileges, but he remained silent and made no requests. Renwick then took his fingerprints, which were passed on to Sergeant Noel, who concluded that the left thumb impression matched the fingerprint on the registration plates.
It was accepted that it was not the appellant who shot and killed the deceased but, on the basis of the facts set out above, the prosecution case was that the appellant was guilty of murder on one or other of two bases. The first was what is known as the felony murder rule and the second was joint enterprise. The Board will return to the ingredients of those offences in the context of its discussion of the individual grounds of appeal below.
The defence case
The appellant, who was aged 24 at the time of the trial and of previous...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richard Anthony Daniel v The State
...penalty. It was common ground before the Board that this sentence cannot stand. As explained in Miguel v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2011] UKPC 14, [2012] 1 AC 361, a mandatory death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and is accordingly inconsistent with sections 4(a) and ......
-
Jay Chandler v The State
...has followed its decision in Matthew in later cases concerning that penalty. See, for example, Miguel v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2011] UKPC 14; [2012] AC 361, para 51 and Pitman v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2017] UKPC 6; [2018] AC 35, para 68 The Board recognises the right of the......
-
Shadrach Gibson v R
...Hksar v Pang Hiu San FACC No. 3 of 2014 considered Jerome Bethell v Regina SCCrimApp. No. 19 of 2013 mentioned Nimrod Miguel v The State [2011] UKPC 14 considered Philip Farquharson v Regina [1973] A.C 786 mentioned R v Jogee and R v Ruddock [2016] UKPC 8 applied R v Johnson and Others [201......
-
The State v Nicholas
...the mandatory death penalty itself was not unconstitutional. 49 In 2011, the Privy Council in the case of Nimrod Miguel v. The State [ [2011] UKPC 14] was invited to consider whether the mandatory death penalty for felony/murder was unconstitutional. This issue had not been specifically con......