Norman Shaw v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Bingham of Cornhill |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] UKPC 26 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 58 of 2000 |
| Date | 24 May 2001 |
[2001] UKPC 26
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Lord Hoffmann
Lord Cooke of Thorndon
Lord Scott of Foscote
Sir Patrick Russell
Privy Council
[Delivered by Lord Bingham of Cornhill]
On 4 July 1996 at Dangriga in southern Belize the appellant shot and killed two men, Fitzgerald Mantock and Rudolph Bermudez (who was also known as "Kilo Boy"). He was tried on two charges of murder, one in respect of each victim, and convicted by the jury on each. He appealed against both convictions to the Court of Appeal, but his appeals were dismissed. His defence at the trial was self-defence, and this appeal turns on the correctness and adequacy of the trial judge's direction to the jury on that issue and a closely related issue under the Criminal Code of Belize. The appellant also contended at trial that the shooting of Mantock was accidental, but the jury by their verdict rejected that contention which gives rise to no continuing issue.
The evidence at trial was that Bermudez sold fake cocaine on behalf of Mantock. On 3 July 1996 at the house of Francis Noralez (also known as "Dread") in Dangriga, when both Mantock and Bermudez were present, the appellant and two associates called to buy a quantity of cocaine. Tests satisfied them that the product offered was genuine cocaine. They paid $3,000 in cash to Bermudez and left with what they thought was cocaine. On returning to Belize City where they lived, the appellant and his associates found that what they had bought was flour.
On 4 July 1996 the appellant with three associates (among them Broaster and Flowers) returned to Dangriga with the object, it would seem, of obtaining genuine cocaine or a return of their money. The appellant and his associates were driving a Cherokee vehicle when they saw Mantock's van. In the van were Mantock, Bermudez, Noralez and a man named Gregorio. Flowers stopped the Cherokee which he was driving so as to block movement by the van. There followed a confrontation between the two groups which culminated in the shooting by the appellant of Mantock and Bermudez.
The main prosecution witness at the trial, and the only eye witness of the incident to give sworn evidence on either side, was Noralez. According to him, the four occupants of the Cherokee got out of it and Mantock got out of the van to talk to them. There was "hard talking" when the four men said they wanted their money back and Mantock said he had no money. Then they asked for Bermudez but Mantock said he was not there. The appellant and his associates surrounded the van, seeing Bermudez, Gregorio and Noralez himself inside it. Mantock was still outside. Broaster was overtly carrying a gun. Then, according to Noralez, "Mantock came to the van for his gun and he went back outside with his gun after he cocked it up". The gun was given to Mantock by Bermudez. Mantock was then outside the van with the gun (according to Noralez, he was holding it pointing downwards) and the argument about return of the money continued. A squabble then broke out. One of the appellant's associates choked Mantock and the appellant took his gun out of his hand and hit him with it. Noralez became aware that the appellant had shot Mantock with the gun from about 5 feet away, and Mantock ran away down the street. When shot, Mantock had nothing in his hand. Noralez and Bermudez were still in the van. Gregorio was outside the vehicle: it seems the appellant and his associates told him to "get out of the ride because they don't want anything to do with him". Then, according to Noralez, the appellant came to the driver's side of the van, opened the door and shot Bermudez, who was sitting on the floor of the van, having first said "Kilo Boy, I have to shoot you, man". Bermudez was unarmed at the time. Turning to Noralez, the appellant said "Dready, I have to shoot you too". He fired again, but Noralez raised his hand and the bullet entered his hand or arm without causing fatal injury. The appellant and his associates then ran away. In cross-examination Noralez agreed that Mantock was known to be a "jacker", namely an armed enforcer of drug debts.
The appellant did not elect to give sworn evidence at the trial. The evidence on which he relied came from three sources. The first was a prosecution witness, Terrylee Miguel who overheard a conversation between the appellant and another man on, it seems, 4 July 1996. According to her the other man asked the appellant "why he shoot the guys before they get the money" to which the appellant replied that "if he didn't shoot the guys they would have shot him" or words to similar effect.
The second source was a statement made by the appellant to the police under caution on 6 July 1996, led in evidence by the prosecution and admitted without objection. In this statement the appellant said:
"On Wednesday 3rd July 1996 myself and three friends by the name of Keith Flowers and the other two persons names I do not know came to Dangriga on a mission to get five packs of cocaine. The vehicle in which we came a cougar car would be exchanged for three packs and would have paid in cash for two packs. The deal did not go as planned. We bought two packs for $4,000. On our way to Belize the three fellows drop me home on Collect Canal in Belize City. When I reached at my home I noticed a piece of dough on my pants on the left leg. I took it off my pants and I tasted it. I took the piece of dough on my tongue and realised it was flour. I then went out by Bismarc Q Club where I met Keith Flowers and told him that the package we got from Dangriga was flour. He told me that we will return to Dangriga to negotiate to get the money or the genuine cocaine. On Thursday 4 July 1996 the four of us, myself, Keith and the same other two persons came to Dangriga. On reaching Dangriga we parked the cougar and caught a taxi and went to Jerry's house. Jerry Martinez house and told him what had happened. He mentioned to us that he had warned us that fake packages are going around. On finishing the discussion Keith Flowers asked him if he could left the cougar and borrow the cherokee. Jerry told us that if anyone asked about the cherokee and especially if any incident would have happened we were to say that we did not know him. On looking for the fellows we found out where the fellows lived and returning to go to Jerry's house we met him on the way. He stopped us and pulled us over. He came out of the cougar and myself and my friends came out of the cherokee and we told Jerry we found where the fellows lived. Jerry told us to be careful because the fellows always carry their gun. On discussing this Jerry told us that he will try to get two pistols for us. Me and my friends drove off in the vehicle to go to Jerry's home. Before we reached Jerry's home we spotted the fellows vehicle parked on a corner but I do not know the name of the street in fact I do not know Dangriga. When we spotted the fellows vehicle we came out of the cherokee - the four of us came out of the cherokee - and Keith Flowers approached the vehicle tapping on the glass on the blue van glass on the driver's side the driver came out of the van and we asked him where was the fellow we made the bargain with. Then I realised someone was in the van when I noticed that there was slight movement in the van. I told the driver if he could ask his friend to come out of the van so that we could talk to him about our money. The driver opened the van door the driver's door and a person came out. My partner realised that there is someone else in the van. The driver then sat back on the driver seat extending his feet outside the van. Meanwhile I noticed that the driver was extending his hand behind the seat. I did not realise at the time what it was. When he pulled his hand from behind I then realise it was a pistol so when he was pointing it at us I hit his wrist and I grabbed on to his gun and at the same time one of my partners approached him with a gun and pointed at him the driver and told him to let go the gun. I realised [that] someone else pulling a next gun from inside the van and at the same time shouted 'Bust it, bust it'. I then cranked the pistol that I took away from the driver and fired a shot because I knew I would have gotten shot if I did not do so. Firing the shot I heard a person in the van said 'shoot them, shoot them'. I had no other chance but to fire anther shot. On firing the next shot the four of us turned to go to our vehicle then one of the four of us, someone shouted 'Look out, look out'. When I turned around I saw someone coming out of the van and I fired a third shot not knowing the damage it would cause. We then ran to our vehicle and went to a young girl's house I did not know …"
A further statement made by the appellant to the police, on 8 July 1996, gave further detail of his associates but threw no significant light on the killings.
The third source was an unsworn statement from the dock. In this the appellant said:
"I, Norman Shaw, never had been in any trouble, never arrested nor convicted in any court.
On 3rd and 4th July of last year I came to Dangriga Town not to kill or hurt anyone. On 3rd July of last year I came with some friends to buy cocaine from Mantock and Kilo Boy. It was arranged already. Knowing Mantock and Kilo Boy, Mantock as a jacker, I still trusted them. Although I was afraid of them, me and my friends thought that Kilo Boy and Mantock had sold us genuine cocaine. Reaching back to Belize City we found out it was flour. So we came back to Dangriga with one honest intention to get our money back or real cocaine. On reaching Sabal Street, we saw Mantock's vehicle and then noticed Kilo Boy who had sold us flour for cocaine the day before. Mantock denied that Kilo Boy was not (sic) in the vehicle...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Chia Leong Foo; PP
-
Horace Kirby v R
...and Aziz ). (6) Approved examples of the exercise of such a residual discretion are not common. Zoppola-Barrazza is one. Shaw [v R [2001] 1 WLR 1519 ] is another. Lord Steyn in Aziz appears to have considered that a person of previous good character who is shown beyond doubt to have been gu......
-
Danny Benjamin Appellant v The Queen Respondent
...BVIHCRAP2010/0006 ( delivered 27th August 2012, unreported) applied; R v Gladstone Williams (1984) 78 Cr. App. R. 276 applied; Shaw v R [2001] UKPC 26 applied; Balroop v R [1999] All E R 916 considered. 5. A defendant's good character must be distinctly raised by direct evidence from him o......
-
Nigel Hunter and Others v R
...of Appeal returned to the Zoppola-Barrazza approach in R v. Martin [2000] 2 Cr App R 42 as did the Privy Council in Shaw v The Queen [2001] 1 WLR 1519; [2002] 1 Cr App R 77 where Lord Bingham gave the opinion of the Board. Martin admitted two robberies in which he had wielded a hammer but c......
-
Private Defence and Public Defence in the Criminal Law and in the Law of Tort—A Comparison
...law.13 R v Gladstone Williams (1984) 78 Cr App R 276, CA.14 R v Keane [2010] EWCA Crim 2514.15 R v Owino [1995] Crim LR 743 at 743.16 [2001] UKPC 26, [2002] 1 Cr App R 10.17 The defendant remains liable in tort unless his mistake was reasonable. Whendiscussing murder, Smith and Hogan’s Crim......
-
The unpleasant responsibilities of international human rights law.
...[section] 161.209 (2003); UTAH CODE ANN. [section] 76-2-402(1) (1953). (156.) See LEVERICK, supra note 151, at 96. (157.) Id.; Shaw v. R [2001] UKPC 26, 19; Palmer v. R [1970] A.C. 814, (158.) LEVERICK, supra note 151, at 96. (159.) R. v. Petel, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 3 (Can.); see also R. v. Lava......