Edmund et Al v The State
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | John, J.A |
| Judgment Date | 16 November 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2007 CA 39 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Appeal Nos. 22, 28 and 30 of 2006 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Date | 16 November 2007 |
Court of Appeal
John, J.A.; Archie, J.A.; Weekes, J.A.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 22, 28 and 30 of 2006
Ms. D. Seetahal and Ms. M. Solomon for appellant Edmund.
Mr. I. Khan and Mr. K. Scotland for appellant Henry.
Mr. I. Khan for appellant Ragbir.
Mr. B. Dolsingh for the respondent.
Criminal law - Murder — Mandatory death sentence — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Comments of the trial judge regarding credibility — Admission of improper evidence — Directions to jury regarding good character and right of accused to give evidence at trial — Improper directions given — Improper exercise of discretion in admitting oral and written statements — Appeal allowed — Re-trial ordered.
On the 31st May 2006, following a trial before Volney J and a jury, the appellants were convicted of the murder of Kelvin Ragbir (also known as Kitch). The judge imposed the mandatory sentence of death by hanging upon each of them.
They have sought leave to appeal their convictions and sentences and we have granted them leave and treated their applications for leave as the hearing of their appeals.
On May 15th 2007, before submissions were heard, Counsel for the State conceded that the appeals of all three appellants should be allowed and submitted that a retrial should be ordered in respect of each. His concession was based on the trial judge's comments on the likely credibility of a Justice of the Peace, in circumstances in which credibility of the Justice of the Peace vis-a-vis the credibility of the appellants was an important issue.
Accordingly, we quashed the convictions and sentences of the appellants and ordered a retrial reserving our reasons. Having made our order we became functus officio. On a further consideration of the matter in preparing the reasons and dealing with each ground filed, as Counsel for the appellants relied on their skeleton submissions, we are now of the view that Ground 1 of appellant Ragbir not only had merit, but that its success should result in a complete acquittal for reasons stated thereunder.
We trust that our opinion will be considered in the interests of justice. The prosecution case and the events of the 2nd to 8th November 2006
The prosecution case was founded principally on the following items of evidence:
-
(a) the written and oral statements of the three appellants;
-
(b) the post-mortem report of the forensic pathologist, Dr. Hughvon Des Vignes;
-
(c) the testimony of Innis Lamorell;
-
(d) the testimony of Kerry Slyvester, and
-
(e) the testimony of Sergeant Deokarand Palloo, and the medical card of Dr. Omatee Arjoonsingh.
The deceased lived in Siparia with his wife, Irene Ragbir (appellant No. 3) and their daughter. He was the owner of a Laurel motor vehicle. On Saturday 2nd November 2006, about 6:30p.m the deceased picked up Neisha Soogrim (Neisha) and they went to the Clifton Hill Recreation bar. There, they met one Desmond Assoon, a close friend of the deceased and his wife. The deceased left with Neisha in his vehicle and Assoon in his own vehicle. The deceased took Neisha to a Kentucky Fried Chicken (K.F.C.) outlet in Point Fortin, then to his workplace, finally dropping her home at around 11:50p.m. He then went home.
About 1:00a.m. on the 3rd November 2006, Innis Lamorell, a neighbour of the deceased, was awakened by the sound of a barking dog. He looked outside towards the vicinity of the deceased's house and observed someone holding a torchlight under the deceased's house while the other two (whom he identified at a later stage) were to the front of the house. One of the two men to the front of the house placed a handkerchief over his mouth while the other man wore a ‘Marvin Gaye cap’ and they walked towards the main road. Lamorell noticed one of the men, whom he had seen earlier at the deceased's house, ascending his staircase. As a result he summoned the police who arrived almost immediately.
Lamorell's step-daughter, Kerry Sylvester, was awakened also by resounding noises emerging from the Ragbir's residence: a banging sound and a scream. She said the scream sounded like ‘when yuh holding down somebody's mouth so they wouldn't scream so the voice is not coming out too loud.’ She saw two persons ‘who looked like boys’ with bandanas on their heads run away from the Ragbir's yard to the junction. She also noticed a third person stooping by the front wheel of the deceased's vehicle which was parked under his house.
At about 2:15a.m. on the same morning, a report was received at the Criminal Investigations Department (C.I.D.) office in Siparia. Sergeant Palloo and other officers including Constable Nemai, a crime scene expert, and Constable Joefield went to the Ragbir's home where they saw the deceased's body lying motionless and face up in a pool of blood on the right side of his motor vehicle. Constable Nemai searched the scene for fingerprint impressions and found three such impressions on the right side of the front door of the deceased's vehicle.
Dr. Omattee Arjoonsingh, the District Medical Officer examined the body and ordered its removal to the Forensic Science Centre. Her examination revealed that there were wounds to the left face and left neck. She concluded that the injuries could have been inflicted approximately two hours before the examination.
Some time later on Sunday 3rd November 2006, Woman Police Constable (W.P.C.) Nicole Simon went to the home of the deceased where she met appellant Irene Ragbir who accompanied her to the C.I.D office in Siparia. There, W.P.C. Simon and Acting Corporal Neptune interviewed her and she gave a flat statement to W.P.C. Simon.
On Monday 4th November 2006, Sergeant Palloo accompanied by a party of police officers went to the home of appellant Edmund where they executed a search warrant and seized several items of clothing. Inspectors Whittaker and Harry interviewed Edmund at the C.I.D. office in Siparia on Monday 4th November 2006 and again on Tuesday 5th November 2006.
On 6th November 2006 Edmund informed Sergeant Phillip that he wanted to give a statement but wanted ‘one hundred percent immunity’. Sergeant Phillip informed him that the Director of Public Prosecutions was the only person who could grant immunity. Edmund then asked to see a senior police officer and Senior Superintendent Philbert was contacted who witnessed a statement from Edmund which was recorded by Sergeant Phillip.
On Thursday 7th November 2006, Edmund had a conversation with Sergeant Phillip during which he implicated Irene Ragbir. He offered to give a statement to Sergeant Phillip about the whole story if he got the opportunity to see a lawyer and a Justice of the Peace. Edmund was allowed to see and speak to his aunt and a lawyer. After speaking with them Sergeants Palloo and Phillip were called into the room by the lawyer, Mr. Rambachan, who told them that Edmund would no longer be giving a statement.
On Tuesday 5th November 2006, Sergeant Phillip also interviewed one Clint Chaitan (also known as Flint). Chaitan was the person who had dropped off Edmund and Henry at the deceased's home on the night of the murder. Later that night, Chaitan took Sergeant Phillip, Inspector Whittaker along with Constable Neptune to the deceased's home, pointed out to them an area and told them something about it. On Wednesday 6th November 2006, Chaitan gave a statement to Sergeant Phillip. However, at the preliminary enquiry he reneged on the statement stating that he had been threatened by the police to give it.
Bruce Henry was interviewed on 6th and 7th November 2006 by Inspector Harry. On 7th November 2006 in the presence of Constable Gookool and the Justice of the Peace, Sergeant Harry recorded a statement from Henry.
On 8th November 2006, Inspector Harry and a party of police officers went to the home of Irene Ragbir. They met her at home and she accompanied them to the C.I.D. where she was interviewed a second time. Later that day Inspector Harry and a party of police officers including Inspector Whittaker and W.P.C. Simon conducted a search at her home in her presence. There they seized a black Petrotrin Daily Appointment Book and a cell phone. Inspector Harry cautioned her and she denied that the cell phone belonged to her. Inspector Harry and W.P.C. Simon interviewed her again and during that interview two attorneys came to the station on her behalf. Inspector Harry told them that he was in the process of conducting an interview and that they would be able to see her in about half an hour. He returned to the room and asked her if she wanted an attorney and she said that she did not want any. Inspector Harry informed her that two attorneys, Messrs. Brian Debideen and Vishwanath Rambaran, were there to see her but she indicated that she wanted to continue with the interview. After the interview she was allowed to speak to the attorneys in the presence of W.P.C. Simon.
On 8th November 2006, Henry was placed on an identification parade and was pointed out by Chaitan as one of the men whom he had dropped off at the home of the deceased on 2nd November 2006. Edmund was placed also on an identification parade. However, Innis Lamorell who was called to the parade did not identify him. On 9th November 2006, Irene Ragbir informed Inspector Harry and W.P.C. Simon that she wanted to give a statement although it was against her attorney's advice.
The statements of the appellants assumed the greatest importance in this case. They made both oral and written statements to the police. We deal first with the statements and interviews of appellant Edmund.
-
i. During his first interview on Monday 4th November 2006, he denied any knowledge about the death of the deceased and gave an account of his whereabouts at the relevant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen v Henry
...reverse itself in the written judgment delivered on 16 June 2017. [The oral decision was immediately binding: Edmund et al v. The State TT 2007 CA 39; Rambarran et al v. The Queen BB 2015 CA 5; and Re Barrell Enterprises and others [1972] 3 All ER 631.] However, Mr Arthurs, counsel for Mr. ......