Pitman v The State (Trinidad and Tobago)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Carswell |
| Judgment Date | 03 March 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] UKPC 16 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No 89 of 2005 |
| Date | 03 March 2008 |
[2008] UKPC 16
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Hoffmann
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Baroness Hale of Richmond
Lord Carswell
Lord Mance
Privy Council
[Delivered by Lord Carswell]
The appellant Lester Pitman, who is now 28 years of age, was convicted on 14 July 2004, after a long trial before Volney J and a jury, of the murder between 10 and 14 December 2001 of three persons, and sentenced to the mandatory sentence of death. He was charged and tried jointly with Daniel Agard, who was also convicted. Both appealed to the Court of Appeal. Agard's appeal was successful, his conviction was quashed and a new trial was ordered. The appellant's appeal was, however, dismissed on 15 April 2005. He was due to be executed on 13 June 2005, but execution was stayed and on 27 July 2006 the Board gave the appellant special leave to appeal as a poor person.
The three persons murdered were John Cropper, Lynette Persad-Lithgow, otherwise Pearson, and Maggie Lee. Lynette Pearson was the sister and Maggie Lee the mother of John Cropper's wife Angela. Agard was Angela Cropper's great-nephew.
In the afternoon of 11 December 2001 there was a tea party at the Croppers' house. Angela Cropper was abroad at the time, but the three victims were all in the house on that day. The other guests left about 7.30 pm. No reply was received to telephone calls made to the house at about 8.30 pm that evening and on the following day. On the morning of 13 December the three victims were found dead in the bathroom. Their hands had been bound with electrical cord and their mouths gagged. The post mortem reports established that all three died from chops/incisions to the neck with a bladed implement. Various items of value were missing from the house, which were subsequently recovered by the police. In the early hours of 12 December the sum of $2000 was withdrawn from the joint bank account of John and Angela Cropper at an ATM cashpoint. There followed two further transactions on 13 December involving the withdrawal of money from the same account at cashpoints and two unsuccessful attempts to withdraw money from a savings account in the Croppers' names.
About 5.30 pm on the afternoon of 11 December 2001 two men were seen by Anjani Maharaj and her mother Jacqueline Maharaj on the grassy verge at the bottom of the hill below the Croppers' house. At an identification parade held on 20 December Jacqueline Maharaj identified the appellant as one of the men whom she had then seen, but Anjani Maharaj did not identify him.
Dion Jones, a taxi driver, gave evidence at trial that he had been approached in the early morning of 12 December by the appellant, who said he had a job for him. About 6 pm that evening Jones collected the appellant and Agard, both of whom he knew previously, and took them to Mendez Drive, where Agard collected two television sets and two small bags. Agard requested him to keep them for him and he arranged for his brother to keep the items. On 14 December Jones was again hired by Agard, and took him to a jewellery store, where Agard gave him some jewels in a plastic bag and asked him to sell them. He did so and later gave the proceeds to Agard. Jones was arrested on 18 December and charged with receiving stolen goods. He was subsequently given immunity against prosecution and gave evidence at the trial of the appellant and Agard, when he was cross-examined on the basis that his evidence was a fabrication and that he was trying to protect a third man "Cudjoe", referred to in Agard's statement to the police as the perpetrator of the murders.
Their Lordships are of opinion that there would not be a sufficient prima facie case of murder against the appellant apart from his statement made to the police, and they will accordingly focus on the content of that statement and the circumstances in which it was taken.
The appellant was arrested at about 7.30 am on 19 December 2001 and taken to the Homicide Office in Port of Spain. He was questioned by Sgt Dick about the murder for about an hour and denied knowing anything about it. A further interview commenced at about 10 am, in the course of which, according to Sgt Dick's evidence, he said in relation to the deaths of the victims "I will tell you about that later". Sgt Dick said that about 1.30 pm he requested a statement and the appellant agreed to give one. The appellant denied in the voir dire that he agreed to tell the sergeant about the matter or that he made a voluntary statement, maintaining that the statement was put before him to sign and that he was given to understand that he should make a statement to clear himself, as Agard had been trying to "set him up".
The appellant's aunt, Mary Pitman-Gilkes, said in evidence in the voir dire and again in the main trial that she became aware that the appellant was wanted for questioning and arranged with Sgt Dick that he should pick him up on the morning of 19 December. She said that later that morning she spoke to the sergeant by telephone and he said that he was positive that Agard was trying to set up the appellant. She asked him if she needed a lawyer for the appellant, to which the sergeant replied that that was not necessary, he was not charged with anything. The appellant stated that his aunt then spoke to him and told him to listen to Sgt Dick and that he would work something out for him. Sgt Dick said that he could not remember speaking to Mrs Pitman-Gilkes, but maintained that he would not tell someone that there is no need to have a lawyer for a suspect.
The police requested Mr Mortley de Peaza, a justice of the peace, at 9.15 am on 19 December to come to the station, but not in connection with the appellant. He did eventually arrive some time after 2 pm and saw the appellant about 2.30. Mr de Peaza said that the appellant told him that he wanted to give a statement, which was voluntary. He then asked the appellant whether he was in a fit state to be interviewed and the appellant replied "I am not in a fit mental state to give the statement now." The appellant's evidence was, however, that he simply said that he was not giving a statement.
Some little time later he again saw the appellant, who said he was ready to give the statement and that he had not received threats, promises or inducements. The appellant then dictated a statement after caution to Sgt Corbett, in the presence of WPC Phillips and Mr de Peaza. The statement commenced at 4.45 pm. The appellant finished dictating about 6.05 pm and answered some questions, which were recorded along with his answers. The appellant signed each page, the officers signed it and Mr de Peaza affixed his certificate authenticating it, setting out in some detail the substance of his conversation with the appellant. The transaction concluded at 7.30 pm.
The appellant's statement, omitting the questions and answers, read as follows:
"Daniel Whey tell me right he is going by a relatives to pick up a radio and other items. I was home at the time. I did told him that I was not feeling to go anywhere and he told me, come let's go, he just going to collect some things. Well, he did tell us to come an go Monday, and then we did not go anywhere again, because I tell him I was not feeling to go anywhere. Tuesday he came and told me, the 11 th, that was last week Tuesday, he want me to go with him to collect his things, after reaching by the place we walk by the gate and the gate was lock. We walk back down the road and cut through by a track up by the house, seeing, just now eh, wait, wait, I ent lying nah, dread, people in the house. We decide to leave an go down the road. Rain started to fall. We were sheltering for a while, and then we start to walk back up the road. Oh good ah mis out a part. When the rain started to fall I en lying nah dread. I told him let us go home, and he told me he have to go an got those tings today. We were sheltering under a tree. It was dark, now starting to get dark. The people and them who was there had left and he told me to come. Walk in the yard and go inside. He hold man and I hold the woman. The man tried to run and, he pulled out a blade, carried them in the Bathroom, tied, he tied them up and stuffed the mouth. I asked him what he was doing and he told me, lets us pack up de car with items. It had another lady, ah old lady, whey she was boy, she was in a small room and he went for her, tied her up too. He put she around by the rest in the Bathroom, then I told him let us go, and he told me he coming now and he went with a knife in his hand to the Bathroom. Before dat two of we was packing items in de car, two T.V., a radio, something in a black bag. I ent sure what it was. It was a plastic bag right. And then he bring out two black bags. [Interruption] I did find he was staying long and I went back inside by the Bathroom and I tell him lets go, and I look inside the Bathroom and I see the three people lying down on the ground, and I see blood. He did come out side with de knife in he hand, and he say they dead. I kill them. We walk the house, and get in the car an leave. I en sure what he do with de knife. We drive de car down town, then come up de road. We went Champ Fleurs, he drop off a radio an T.V. by a low hair fella. He did went in the yard, and I remain in de road. Den we drive up MAITAGUAL, and I went home with Five Hundred in my pocket whey I did take from the house, on top of ah dressing table and dat is it dey."
At no stage during the time between the appellant's arrival at the Homicide Office and the conclusion of the taking of his statement was any accompanying person present with him, nor did he see a lawyer during that time.
Agard made a statement in writing on the morning of 19 December, in which he admitted going to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunte and Khan v The State (Trinidad and Tobago)
...act can be ordered sooner". The State very properly says that this is for the Board to decide. 100 The second of the pending cases is Pitman v The State, which was first before the Board in 2008 ( Pitman v State [2008] UKPC 16), when it was referred back to the Court of Appeal for consider......
-
Brown v The State
...appeal to receive fresh evidence "if it thinks it necessary or expedient in the interest of justice". Of this power the Board said in Pitman v The State [2008] UKPC 16 at para 31: "Section 47 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act of Trinidad and Tobago gives the Court of Appeal power in a......
-
Ramdeen v The State
...Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago could not have done in similar circumstances. A similar situation arose in the Court of Appeal in State v Pitman [2013] Cr App No 44 of 2004. The appellant was convicted of a triple murder and sentenced to death. He appealed against his conviction and ......
-
Benjamin and Ganga v The State
...the reports of Dr Latham and Dr Green. The respondent, nevertheless, invited the Board to "spell out" on which of the so-called ( Pitman v The State Pitman [2008] UKPC 16) grounds the matter is to be remitted. In para 30 of the judgment in that case the Board adumbrated a number of possibl......