Reid v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Judgment Date | 1979 |
| Year | 1979 |
| Date | 1979 |
Jamaica - Crime - Court of Appeal - New trial - Verdict unreasonable and not supported by evidence - Whether interests of justice require new trial - Factors to be considered -
The defendant was charged with murder. At his trial the prosecution case against him depended upon an identification ot him by a single eye-witness. The defendant was convicted. On appeal, the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction holding in effect that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and was not supported by the evidence but, by a majority, the court ordered new trial under section 14 (2) of the Judicature (Appellate Jurisdiction) Act.
On the defendant s appeal to the Judicial Committee against the order for a new trial: —
Per curiam. In setting out the principles to be applied in considering whether to order a new trial, there is a danger that, despite all warnings, it may be treated as exhaustive; it must be recognised that relevant factors vary widely according to the circumstances of each particular case and local conditions. Factors which may deserve consideration are the seriousness and prevalence of the offence: the probable duration and expense of a new trial; the ordeal to be undergone for a second time by the defendant and the lapse of time since the commission of the offence and its effect on the quality of the evidence. The strength of the prosecuting case at the original trial is always a factor to be taken into account but, except in cases such as the present or in circumstances where it would be appropriate to apply the proviso to section 14 (1) of the Judicature (Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, its effect may vary widely: it is not necessary that the Court of Appeal should be satisfied of the probability of a conviction for there may be cases where a conviction would be improbable but the interests of justice demand that the matter should be determined by the verdict of a jury and not left undecided (post, pp. 226C, E, G–227F).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of their Lordships:
Burks v. United States (
Greene v. Massey (
Ng Yuk Kin v. The Crown (
Reg. v. Turnbull [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Hemapala v. The Queen [
Holder v. The Queen [
King v. The Queen [
Reg. v. Stephens (unreported), Jamaica Supreme Court (Criminal Appeals) No. 46 of 1974.
APPEAL (No. 37 of 1977) by Dennis Reid, the defendant, from a judgment (March 11, 1977) of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica (Swaby and Zacca JJ.A. and Melville Ag.J.A.). The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant's appeal and quashed his conviction (May 7, 1976) before Robotham J. and a jury in the Home Circuit Court Division of the Gun Court of the murder of Fedlan Walsh on April 6, 1975. In addition the Court of Appeal by a majority ordered a new trial. On November 7, 1977, the Court of Appeal (Robinson P., Zacca J.A. and Melville J.A.) granted the defendant final leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council.
The facts are stated in the judgment of their Lordships.
Roy Taylor (of the Jamaica Bar) for the defendant.
Ian X. Forte and Henderson Downer (both of the Jamaica Bar) for the Crown.
December 4. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD DIPLOCK.
In this appeal brought by leave of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica the appellant (“the defendant”) seeks to have set aside an order of that court of March 11, 1977, whereby it ordered a new trial of the defendant upon a charge of murder of which he had been convicted by the verdict of a jury upon his trial in the Home Circuit Court on May 7, 1976. The case against the defendant presented by the prosecution at that previous trial had turned upon his identification by a single eye-witness, Miss Sadie Samuels, as having been present and armed with a revolver on the premises where and at the time when the deceased, a beach club proprietor called Fedlan Walsh, was shot. The appeal of the defendant against his conviction was based principally on the quality of this identification evidence. It was contended on his behalf that the verdict of the jury was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence; alternatively it was contended that the learned judge in his summing up had failed to give the jury adequate instructions and warnings upon the issue of identity.
The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. Their Lordships will examine later the precise grounds on which they did so. They also ordered a new trial; but this was by a majority only. In July 1977 they gave leave to the defendant to appeal to Her Majesty in Council and certified four points of law as arising for consideration on the appeal, viz:
“1. Whether or not the Court of Appeal can properly order a new trial where the only evidence implicating the defendant (a) has been discredited and/or (b) is palpably or manifestly...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart 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
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
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
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
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
Start Your Free Trial
-
Stubbs v The Queen
...reasonable steps to call Higgs to give evidence. In its view, to order a retrial would be contrary to the principle in Reid v The Queen [1980] AC 343 that the Crown should not be given another chance to cure evidential deficiencies in its case against an accused. Furthermore, the majority n......
- Phon Nam v PP
- Chee Chiew Heong v PP
-
Powery v R
...2 All E.R. 856, applied. (5) R. v. Dickens, [1990] 2 Q.B. 102; [1990] 2 All E.R. 626, dicta of Lord Lane, C.J. applied. (6) Reid v. R., [1980] A.C. 343; [1979] 2 All E.R. 904, dictum of Lord Diplock applied. Legislation construed: Misuse of Drugs Law (Second Revision) (Law 13 of 1973, revis......
-
Preliminary Sections
...21 C.A. ..................................................................................................... Dennis Reid v. The Queen (1979) 2 W.L.R. 221 at 226. 44 153 Dim v. R. (1952) 14 W.A.C.A. 154. 192 Dinkerrai Ramkrishna Pandya v. Regina Vol.!' No.11 1958 Journal of African Law Page......