Privy Council
| Author | Graeme Broadbent |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.68.1.37.25839 |
| Published date | 01 January 2004 |
| Date | 01 January 2004 |
| Subject Matter | Privy Council |
Privy Council
Jamaica: Capital Murder—Jury Directions
Hunter and Moodie v The Queen [2003] UKPC 69
A police patrol was travelling in an unmarked vehicle. The officers came
upon four men, all known to them, who opened fire on the vehicle and
then ran off. Three officers pursued them on foot. They split up and
carried on the chase until two officers were at one end of a street, whilst
the third was some 30 feet away down the same street. The evidence of
the two officers was that the defendants emerged from a building in
between the two officers and the single officer. As they did so, they
turned and pointed their guns in the direction of the single officer.
Gunshots were heard and the officer fell to the ground. He subsequently
died. The other two men, who had emerged from the same building,
then joined the defendants. Shots were fired at the two remaining
officers before all four escaped. The deceased had suffered two bullet
wounds, either of which, according to expert evidence, could have killed
him. Only one bullet remained in his body, the other having passed
through. The defendants were subsequently arrested. The police evi-
dence was that, following arrest, each had made a statement claiming
not to have fired a shot. The first defendant had gone on to say that it
was the second defendant who had fired, whilst the second defendant
said it was one of the two other men. At their trial, the defendants put
forward an alibi and denied making these statements. The statements
were, however, put to the jury as part of the Crown’s case.
The law of Jamaica divides murders into two categories, capital and
non-capital. The criteria governing this are in s. 2(1) and (2) of the
Offences Against the Person Act 1864 (as amended). The judge’s
summing-up included a direction on joint enterprise and ended by
giving the jury the limited option of deciding between a verdict of guilty
of capital murder or not guilty. He did not, however, direct them that a
verdict of guilty of non-capital murder might be returned. The jury
found the defendants guilty of capital murder. M was sentenced to
death. H, who was aged 15 at the time of the offence, was sentenced to
detention at the Governor-General’s pleasure. This sentence was over-
turned by the Court of Appeal and a sentence of life imprisonment, with
a recommendation that H should serve at least 20 years, was substituted.
The appeals of both defendants against conviction were dismissed.
The defendants appealed to the Privy Council on two principal
grounds. First, that the trial judge had erred in failing to leave to the jury
the possibility of an alternative verdict of guilty of non-capital murder
and, secondly, that his directions on the application of s. 2 (2) of the
Offences Against the Person Act 1864 were inadequate and confusing.
H
ELD
,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL
,the judge’s directions were both con-
fusing and misleading insofar as they referred to joint enterprise, which
had no relevance to the charge of capital murder: s. 2(2) made each
37
To continue reading
Request your trial