Yearwood v R
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Hope of Craighead |
| Judgment Date | 26 June 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] UKPC 31 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 75 of 2000 |
| Date | 26 June 2001 |
[2001] UKPC 31
Privy Council
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Slynn of Hadley
Lord Steyn
Lord Hoffmann
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Hutton
[Delivered by Lord Hope of Craighead]
The deceased Jefferson Gilbert was killed by a single stab wound to the chest on 29th August 1998 during a party at the Grand Mal Community Centre, St George, Grenada. On 30th August 1998 the appellant Michael Yearwood was arrested and charged with his murder. On 15th March 1999 in the Supreme Court of Grenada (St Paul J and a jury) he was found guilty of the murder and sentenced to death. He appealed against his conviction to the Court of Appeal of Grenada. On 8th July 1999 the Court of Appeal (Byron CJ, Satrohan Singh and Redhead JJA) dismissed the appeal. On 14th December 1999 he was given special leave to appeal as a poor person to their Lordships' Board. At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal on 16th May 2001 their Lordships announced that, for reasons to be given later, they would humbly advise Her Majesty that the appeal should be allowed and that there should be substituted for the verdict of murder a verdict of manslaughter. The following are the reasons which their Lordships now give for their report.
There were a number of eyewitnesses to the events of the evening in the course of which the deceased was killed. It is unnecessary for the purposes of this report to go into all the details. The deceased had gone to a party in the Community Centre with his brother Jason Gilbert, his cousin Stephen Greenidge, his brother in law Devon Vincent and one other man. There was a dance hall upstairs where music was being played. After a while Jason Gilbert left the others and went downstairs for a short time. When he went back upstairs he found that the appellant and another man had positioned themselves in the doorway at one of the entrances with led from a veranda into the dance hall. He told them that he had paid his entrance fee and asked them to let him pass so that he could get into the hall. The appellant refused to do so and swore at him, so he went down the corridor and went into the hall through another door. Later, when he was in the dance hall, he saw the deceased and his cousin trying to leave the dance hall by the doorway which was still being blocked by the appellant. After an argument they got out of the hall and went downstairs. Shortly afterwards Jason Gilbert too went downstairs. He found his brother lying on his face on the ground. He was bleeding heavily from a wound in his chest. He was pronounced dead on being taken to hospital. The cause of death was a single stab wound to the chest.
Several witnesses including Stephen Greenidge and Devon Vincent said that they had seen an argument between the deceased and the appellant when they were upstairs at the entrance to the dance hall. Devon Vincent said that they had been pointing hands in each other faces. Stephen Greenidge said that they were arguing again at the foot of the stairs. He said that he saw the appellant deliver what appeared to be a punch to the deceased's chest. The appellant then turned to him and punched him in the back. As he walked away he realised that he had been stabbed. Devon Vincent also described this incident. He said that the deceased had gone downstairs to get some coca cola and was walking back upstairs. As he did so the appellant took something from the man next to him and put it in his pocket. He then went downstairs where he grabbed the deceased by the collar, took his hand from his pocket and punched the deceased on his body. Devon Vincent said that he saw what looked like a knife in the appellant's hand.
Among the eyewitnesses were three friends of the appellant. Two of them, Alwyn Clarke and Gibson Parris, said that they saw several people quarrelling with the appellant when he was standing at the door to the dance hall. Alwyn Clarke said that someone said to the appellant that if it was a fight he wanted he should go downstairs and fight. Gibson Parris said that he saw three men quarrelling with the appellant upstairs. One of them told the appellant to go downstairs where he would deal with him. Some minutes later the appellant went downstairs. One of the two men went up to him and started quarrelling with him again. A third man joined in and there was a scuffle during which punches were thrown. Gibson Parris said that he spoke to the appellant after the deceased had been stabbed and asked him what had happened. The appellant said that the other men had been fighting with him and that he got the knife from one of them.
An off duty police constable, Bernard Thomas, described an incident in the course of the same evening during which the appellant pulled a knife from his pocket and threatened him with it. He said that he later saw the appellant hold on to a man by his collar, push him against a wall, pull out his knife and make a thrust with it. The appellant went next day to the police station with his attorney. When he was questioned by the police he made no admissions and replied "no comment" to almost every question. He was formally arrested and charged with murder.
There was no dispute at the trial that the deceased died from a stab wound which had been inflicted on him by the appellant. The appellant gave an unsworn statement from the dock. He said that the deceased and two other men had come up to him when he was upstairs, quarrelled with him and accused him of blocking the door. The deceased asked if he was afraid to go downstairs. Later, when he went downstairs, the deceased came up to him with a bottle in his hand and they started to quarrel again. He then saw two men come up to him. One of them had a knife in his hand. The quarrelling started up again and there was a scuffle. He made a grab for the knife, "made a juke" and then ran. His defences to the charge of murder were provocation, self-defence and accident. The trial judge left all three defences to the jury in his summing up.
In the Court of Appeal various grounds of appeal were argued. It was said that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on the question of specific intent, and that when he was dealing with the defence of provocation he did not include aspects of the prosecution case which could have been helpful to the defence. The Court of Appeal said that the judge had explained the law to the jury impeccably, that there was ample evidence to support the jury's finding and that the appellant had not suffered a miscarriage of justice.
The arguments in support of the appellant's appeal were presented in a different way before their Lordships' Board. It was submitted that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the onus of proof as to his defence of provocation and on the approach to his defence of self-defence. It was also submitted that he failed to provide the jury with comprehensible directions of law on the essential issues which were adapted to the facts of the case. Mr Blake QC for the appellant accepted that his argument about the onus of proof of provocation was not raised at the trial or in the Court of Appeal. He also accepted that his argument on the defence of self-defence could be met without difficulty on the facts by the application of the proviso and that the onus of proof of provocation was the only point in the case. It was to that point only that he addressed his argument. In these circumstances their Lordships need say nothing about the other grounds of appeal.
Sections 238 to 241 of the Criminal Code of Grenada provide:
"238. Whoever intentionally causes the death of another person by any unlawful harm is guilty of murder, unless his crime is reduced to manslaughter by reason of such extreme provocation, or other matter of partial excuse, as in the next succeeding section is mentioned.
239. A person who intentionally causes the death of another person by unlawful harm shall be deemed to be guilty only of manslaughter, and not of murder, if any of the following matters of extenuation are proved on his behalf, namely -
(a) that he was deprived of the power of self-control by such extreme provocation given by the other person as is mentioned in the next succeeding section; or
(b) that he was justified in causing some harm to the other person, and that, in causing harm in excess of the harm which he was justified in causing, he acted from such terror of immediate death or grievous harm as in fact deprived him for the time being of the power of self-control; or
(c) that, in causing the death, he acted in the belief, in good faith and on reasonable grounds, that he was under a legal duty to cause the death or to do the act which he did …
240. The following matters may amount to extreme provocation to one person to cause the death of another person,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Lambert
...obligation of the kind that has now been written into our domestic law by section 3(1) of the 1998 Act. 86 More recently, in Michael Yearwood v The Queen [2001] UKPC (June 2001) the Board held that section 239 of the Grenada Criminal Code, which is in the same terms as section 116 of the Be......
-
R (Kaur) v Institute of Legal Executives Appeal Tribunal
...as the importance of avoiding an appearance of bias with partiality: Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 37; General Dental Council v Price [2001] UKPC, 31 (paragraph 20); Tehrani v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2001], a decision of the outer house of the Court of Session at paragraph 87; R v Bo......
-
Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza, [2004] N.R. Uned. 112 (HL)
...2 A.C. 545, 587, paras. 85 and 86, Lord Hope cites two examples, Vasquez v. The Queen [1994] 1 W.L.R. 1304 and Yearwood v. The Queen [2001] UKPC 31; [2001] 5 L.R.C 247. Both of them show how far the Privy Council has been prepared to go in substituting very different words for the words of ......
-
Queen v Stephen Greenaway
...265. It is what the Judicial Committee envisaged in Vasquez v R [1994] 3 All ER 674 at 683,[1994] 1 WLR 1304 at 1314 and in Yearwood v R [2001] UKPC 31. It is what the common law requires of a defendant who wishes to invoke one of the common law defences such as provocation or duress. “ and......