Palmer v The Queen; Irving v The Queen

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
CourtPrivy Council
Judgment Date1971
Year1971
Date1971
[PRIVY COUNCIL] SIGISMUND PALMER APPELLANT AND THE QUEEN RESPONDENT DERRICK IRVING APPELLANT AND THE QUEEN RESPONDENT [ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF JAMAICA] 1970 Nov. 17, 18, 19, 23 1971 Feb. 15 Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Donovan and Lord Avonside

Crime - Homicide - Intention to kill - Direction to jury - Self-defence raised - Issue left to jury - Whether obligatory to direct jury that if more force than necessary used in self-defence they should return verdict of manslaughter

The appellants were each separately convicted before the Supreme Court of Jamaica for murder and sentenced to death. In both cases an issue of self-defence was raised and left to the jury. In each case in summing up the trial judge referred to the defence of self-defence which had been raised but indicated that on the facts only two verdicts were open: guilty of murder or not guilty. Applications for leave to appeal were dismissed by the Court of Appeal of Jamaica and appeals were brought by special leave to the Judicial Committee. In each case the only question raised for determination was whether in cases of murder where an issue of self-defence was left to the jury it was in all cases obligatory to direct the jury that if they found that the defendant while intending to defend himself had used more force than was necessary in the circumstances they should return a verdict of guilty of manslaughter. On the issue raised in both appeals, which were heard together: —

Held, dismissing the appeals, that there was no rule that in every case where the issue of self-defence was left to the jury that they had to be directed that if they considered excessive force was used in defence they should return a verdict of guilty of manslaughter; and that all that was needed in the summing up was a clear exposition, in relation to the particular facts of the case, of the conception of necessary self-defence (post, pp. 837D, 844A, 846G, H).

Decision of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica affirmed.

The following cases are referred to in the judgments:

Bullard v. The Queen [1957] A.C. 635; [1957] 3 W.L.R. 656, P.C.

Chan Kau v. The Queen [1955] A.C. 206; [1955] 2 W.L.R. 192; [1955] 1 All E.R. 266, P.C.

De Freitas v. The Queen (1960) 2 W.I.R. 523.

Johnson v. The Queen (1966) 10 W.I.R. 402.

Mancini v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1942] A.C. 1; [1941] 3 All E.R. 272, H.L.(E.).

Reg. v. Hamilton (1967) 11 W.I.R. 309.

Reg. v. Hassin [1963] Crim.L.R. 852; The Times, October 3, 1963, C.C.A.

Reg. v. Howe (1958) 100 C.L.R. 448.

Reg. v. McKay [1957] V.R. 560.

Reg. v. Odgers (1843) 2 Mood & R. 479.

Reg. v. Patience (1836) 7 C. & P. 775.

Reg. v. Symondson (1896) 60 J.P. 645.

Reg. v. Weston (1879) 14 COX C.C. 346.

Reg. v. Wilson [1955] 1 W.L.R. 493; [1955] 1 All E.R. 744, C.C.A.

Rex v. Biggin [1920] 1 K.B. 213; 14 Cr.App.R. 87, C.C.A.

Rex v. Cook (Cook's Case) (1640) Cro.Car. 537.

Rex v. Scully (1824) 1 C. & P. 319.

Rex v. Whalley (1835) 7 C. & P. 245.

The following additional cases were cited in argument:

Advocate H.M. v. Kizileviczius, 1938 S.C. 60.

Antoine and Bass v. The Queen (1968) 13 W.I.R. 289.

Chung Kum Moey v. Public Prosecutor for Singapore [1967] 2 A.C. 173; [1967] 2 W.L.R. 657, P.C.

Crawford v. H.M. Advocate, 1950 S.C. 67.

Jackson v. The Queen (1962) R. & N. 157.

Mengi v. The Queen [1964] E.A. 289.

Phillips v. The Queen [1969] 2 A.C. 130; [1969] 2 W.L.R. 581, P.C.

Reg. v. Allen (1867) 17 L.T. 222.

Reg. v. Archer (unreported) September 1970, C.A. Jamaica.

Reg. v. Balgobin (1966) 10 W.I.R. 362.

Reg. v. Cascoe [1970] 2 All E.R. 833, C.A.

Reg. v. Ebanks (unreported) December 1969, C.A. Jamaica.

Reg. v. Tikos (No. 1) [1963] V.R. 285.

Reg. v. Tikos (No. 2) [1963] V.R. 306.

Rex v. Barilla (1944) 4 D.L.R. 344.

Rex v. Hussey (1924) 18 Cr.App.R. 160, C.C.A.

APPEAL (No. 4 of 1970) by special leave in forma pauperis from a judgment (May 9, 1969) of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica (Waddington Ag. P., Eccleston and Edun JJ.A.) dismissing the application of the appellant, Sigismund Palmer, for leave to appeal against his conviction for murder in the Supreme Court (Robotham J. and a jury).

APPEAL (No. 14 of 1970) by special leave in forma pauperis from a judgment (July 23, 1969) of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica (Waddington Ag. P., Luckhoo and Edun JJ.A.) dismissing the application of the appellant, Derrick Irving, for leave to appeal against his conviction for murder in the Supreme Court (Parnell J. and a jury).

These appeals were heard together as the same contention was raised in each.

The facts are stated in the judgments of their Lordships.

Louis Blom-Cooper Q.C. and Eugene Cotran for the appellants.

J. S. Kerr Q.C. (Director of Public Prosecutions, Jamaica) and Mervyn Heald Q.C. for the Crown.

Cur. adv. vult.

February 15. The judgments of their Lordships were delivered by LORD MORRIS OF BORTH-Y-GEST.

PALMER v. THE QUEEN

The appellant, Sigismund Palmer, was indicted for the murder on May 14, 1968, of a man named Cecil Henry. After a trial before Robotham J. in the Supreme Court he was convicted by the jury and he was sentenced to death. He made application to the Court of Appeal, Jamaica, for leave to appeal. His application was heard by Waddington Ag. P., Eccleston and Edun JJ.A. on May 8 and 9, 1969. By their judgment in which all the grounds of appeal were fully examined the application for leave to appeal was refused. By special leave, appeal is now brought from the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The only question that is raised for determination is whether in cases where on a charge of murder an issue of self-defence is left to the jury it will in all cases be obligatory to direct the jury that if they found that the accused while intending to defend himself had used more force than was necessary in the circumstances they should return a verdict of guilty of manslaughter. It is necessary to set out the facts in relation to which the question is raised. The case for the Crown at the trial was summarised in the judgment of the Court of Appeal. It was:

“On May 14, 1968, the accused and two other men, George Wilson land Valentine Wilson, who were brothers, went to the home of Dahlia Campbell at Simm's Run in the parish of Saint Ann to purchase ganja. According to the evidence of George Wilson, who was called as a witness for the Crown, before they got to Dahlia Campbell's home he had seen the accused with a shot gun and he had asked the accused to give him the gun, which the accused did. At Dahlia Campbell's yard, George Wilson told her that he heard that she was selling ganja and he asked her to sell him some. Dahlia Campbell was a bit reluctant, believing that they were police, but after some persuasion she brought them a sample of the ganja which they all three tested and approved. Dahlia Campbell then brought out a bag of ganja which they started to weigh. Whilst this was going on, Fedley Brown and Augustus Johnson came to the yard also bringing some ganja with them, and they also offered to sell their ganja to the Wilsons and the accused. Brown and Johnson's ganja was then weighed and after the ganja was weighed George Wilson remarked, ‘What a way oonu have ganja in the country legge, legge and it is against the law.’ On his saying this, Dahlia Campbell, Fedley Brown and Augustus Johnson ran away. George Wilson then took up the ganja and a machete belonging to Dahlia Campbell, and fired two shots from the gun. They all three then left with the ganja, Valentine Wilson carrying one bag, the accused carrying another bag and George Wilson carrying the gun and machete. They went along the road toward Higgin Land, and after they had gone a little distance the accused demanded back the gun from George Wilson. There was some argument over the gun but eventually George Wilson handed the gun back to the accused and took the bag of ganja which the accused had been carrying. By this time it appears that an alarm had been raised that the three men had taken the ganja and had not paid for it, and so they decided ko turn off the main road and go up into the hills in order to avoid contact with the crowd. George Wilson said that they heard the sound of walking coming towards them, and the accused fired a shot and the people ran. They then went to another hill nearby, where all three of them stooped down when they heard more people coming. George Wilson said that the accused then made an attempt to fire the gun but he (George Wilson) held his hand and told him that he did not want anyone to get shot in the country because it was his (George Wilson's) country. He heard some of the men who were pursuing them say that they were still up there in the bush, and thereupon the accused made another attempt to fire the gun and this time Valentine Wilson stopped him, telling him that he should not fire the shot as it might shoot someone in the bush whom they had not seen. George Wilson said that while they were stooping in the bush they heard a walking coming from the direction from which they had come. The people were near to them and he heard someone saying, ‘Palmer, Palmer, come and carry your gun.’ George Wilson said he then saw a shadow, and he took his machete and started to chop his way out of the bush. He then saw the accused leaning on a tree with the gun in his hand and saw him fire two shots in the direction where he had seen the shadow. Wilson then ran out of the bush followed by Valentine Wilson. George Wilson said he heard them both saying that a man had got shot. They were still being followed by some of the people, and the accused spoke out loudly so that the people following could hear, saying, that he had a pack of shots and if they followed him until night he would shoot them because dead men tell no tales. Eventually, they threw off their pursuers and returned to Kingston, from whence they had come, with the ganja.”

The evidence of Valentine Wilson who was called for the Crown was substantially in agreement with that of George...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
236 cases
  • R v Steven Grant
    • Jamaica
    • Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
    • 12 July 2004
    ...judge taking this into consideration sought to structure these directions along lines similar to those adumbrated by Lord Morris in Palmer v The Queen [1971] 12 J.L.R. 311 at 322 B–G in delivering the advice of Her Majesty's Board of the Privy Council. In the instant case there is no compla......
  • R v Clegg
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 19 January 1995
    ...to manslaughter." 25 Twelve years later the same point came before the Privy Council on appeal from the Supreme Court of Jamaica: see Palmer v. The Queen [1971] A.C. 814. Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, giving the opinion of the Privy Council, declined to follow Howe's case, preferring the dec......
  • Che Gregory Spencer Appellant v DPP Respondent [ECSC]
    • St Kitts & Nevis
    • Court of Appeal (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
    • 10 February 2014
    ...judge's discretion how he approaches his summation. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. Sigismund Palmer et al v The Queen [1971] AC 814 applied; Baptiste v The State (1983) 34 WIR 253 applied; Fabien LaRoche v The State Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Court of Appeal No. 32......
  • McCarthy v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 13 December 2016
    ... ... THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ... ( Sir Brian Leveson) ... Lady Justice ... But the words of Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest in Palmer v The Queen [1971] AC 814 at page 827 nonetheless resonate: ... ...
  • Get Started for Free
25 books & journal articles
  • The Development of the High Court's Willingness to Overrule Common Law Precedent
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 45-2, June 2017
    • 1 June 2017
    ...doctrine: McHugh, above n 1, 47. 98 (1983) 153 CLR 52. 99 (1999) 201 CLR 49. 100 (2009) 239 CLR 175. 101 (1978) 141 CLR 88 (‘Viro’). 102 [1971] AC 814. This was an appeal to the Privy Council from Jamaica. Prior to 1975 when the appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council was removed, t......
  • Defenceless Castles
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 80-6, December 2016
    • 1 December 2016
    ...Justice and Immigration Act 2008, s. 76.6. Explanatory Notes to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, para. 532.7. Palmer v R [1971] AC 814 (PC); approved in R v Mclnnes [1971] 1 WLR 1600 (CA).8. R v Keane; R v McGrath [2010] EWCA Crim 2514, [2011] Crim LR 393 [6] (Hughes LJ).9. R ......
  • Court of Appeal
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 71-2, April 2007
    • 1 April 2007
    ...left to the jury, the prosecutionmust rebut it beyond reasonable doubt (Chan Kau v R[1955] AC 206; Rv Lobell [1957] 1 QB 547; Palmer v R[1971] AC 814; R v Abraham[1973]3 All ER 694). Lord Griff‌iths explained why this burden was on theprosecution in Beckford v R[1988] AC 130 at 144:It is be......
  • Recognising the Role of the Emotion of Fear in Offences and Defences
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 83-6, December 2019
    • 1 December 2019
    ...to Murder with the Offence of Coercive or Controlling Behaviour’(2019) 83(1) JCL 71–86.18. Criminal Law Act 1967 s 3. See also Palmer v R [1971] AC 814 approved in R v McInnes 55 Cr App R 551.19. Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 s 76(6), ‘The degree of force used by D is not to be ......
  • Get Started for Free