Williams (Cardinal) v R

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
CourtPrivy Council
JudgeLord Hoffman of Woodborough J.A.,Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, J.A.,Lord Hutton Woodborough J.A.
Judgment Date07 Jul 1999
Docket NumberNo. 199

Privy Council

Lord Hoffman of Woodborough J.A.; Lord Hutton Woodborough J.A.; Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, J.A.

No. 199


Criminal law - Defense — Abnormality of mind — Privy Council had remitted case to the Court of Appeal of St. Vincent and the Grenadines for the court to hear the evidence of a doctor — Court of Appeal by a majority refused — Privy Council advised Her Majesty that the petitioner be granted special leave to appeal in order to allow argument as to whether the course adopted by the Court of Appeal could properly be sustained.


At conclusion yesterday of the arguments of this petition, their Lordships indicated that they were disposed humbly to advise Her Majesty to grant leave to appeal. Ordinarily they would say no more. But the unusual circumstances in which this matter has come for a second time before the Board suggest that it might be useful if gave some indication of what was intended when they made the Report that led to the Order in Council of 16th December 1998.


In their advice to Her Majesty their Lordships expressed the view that the proposed evidence of Dr. Eastman, which then took the form of an unsworn report, was likely to be credible within the meaning of section 45 of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) Act c. 18 and that there was reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce that evidence at the trial. It would of course have been within the powers of the Board to advise that the decision on these questions be remanded to the Court of Appeal. Their Lordships have no doubt that the Court of Appeal would have dealt with them judicially and responsibly. But the Board also has its responsibilities as the final Court of Appeal of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and, having formed the view that the requirements of the section had been satisfied, thought it right to say so.


In the circumstances, it was contemplated by the Board that the appellant would be permitted to call Dr. Eastman to give evidence, either at a new trial or before the Court of Appeal, and that it would be open to the Crown to cross-examine him and call evidence in rebuttal. Their Lordships understand from Sir Godfray Le Quesne Q.C. and Mr. Guthrie Q.C., who represented the parties on that occasion as now, that this was what they too understood. The Court of Appeal has expressed the view that Dr. Eastman's evidence appears on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • R v Van Dongen (Anthony Gerrard); R v Van Dongen (Mitchell)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 5 July 2005
    ...properly be applied even where the objective issue should have been but was not left to the jury." Such a case, he said, was Williams (Cardinal) v R (1998) 53 WIR 162, in which the objective issue should have been left to the jury, but the appeal failed because the jury by their verdi......
  • Franco v The Queen
    • United Kingdom
    • Privy Council
    • 14 August 2001
    ...proviso may properly be applied even where the objective issue should have been but was not left to the jury. Williams (Cardinal) v R (1998) 53 WIR 162 was such a case. The defendant was charged with the murder of his common law wife. He claimed in evidence that he had been provoked to kil......
  • R (Farnell) v Criminal Cases Review Commission
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 15 April 2003
    ...not feel that it would be right to apply it in this case." Expressly adopting this last observation in Whitfield, (and citing Williams (Cardinal) v R (1998) 53 WIR 162 as an example of such a case), the Board in Franco also emphasised the jury's particular role in section 3. Lord Bing......
  • Deshan Rampharry v The State
    • United Kingdom
    • Privy Council
    • 20 January 1999
  • Request a trial to view additional results