McClean v The State

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Permanand, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 07 March 2002
• Neutral Citation: TT 2002 CA 16
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2000
• Date: 07 March 2002

Court of Appeal

Permanand J.A.; Jones J.A.; Lucky J.A.

Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2000

McClean

and

The State

Appearances:

Ms. M. Rose for the appellant.

Ms. S. Chote for the respondent.

Practice and Procedure - Directions to the jury — Whether the trial judge had failed to properly direct the jury on how to treat the evidence of the armourer — Finding that since the cartridge had been admitted into evidence and the jury had an opportunity of seeing it the jury could appreciate the object as being that which had been certified in the Armourer's Report — Accordingly the failure by the trial judge to define ammunition resulted in a miscarriage of justice — Conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm quashed — Conviction and sentence for possession of ammunition upheld.

Permanand, J.A.

1 The appellant was indicted on four counts namely for possession of firearm, and possession of ammunition contrary to s.6(1) of the Firearms Act Chapter 16:01 (The Act) and possession of a firearm and possession of ammunition with intent to endanger life contrary to s.12(1), of the Act.

2 The appellant was convicted on 21st January, 2000 on the first and second counts. He was sentenced to three years hard labour for the possession of firearm and to one year hard labour for the possession of ammunition. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3 With regard to the offences of having the firearm and ammunition in his possession with intent to endanger life he was acquitted of both counts.

The Evidence

4 Police Constable Meetoo testified that at about 5.45 p.m. on June 25, 1991 he had gone to Rosslands, St. James with Police Constable Harford. While they were driving, Meetoo saw the appellant whom he had known previously for four years. The appellant was carrying a bulky object under his shirt.

5 The appellant looked in the direction of the police and went down a precipice. Meetoo looked down and saw him there clutching the object under his shirt. Meetoo drove off and returned to the area where he had first seen the appellant and saw the appellant in the vicinity. He stopped the car and both he and Harford alighted.

6 The appellant looked in their direction and started to run. He also pulled out what appeared to be a home made shotgun from under his shirt. The officers both said “police, stop.” The appellant then threw himself on the ground, pointed the shotgun in their direction and they heard a loud click which seemed to come from the shotgun.

7 Meetoo said he drew his revolver and again heard another loud click similarly to the one before. He then fired three shots in the appellant's direction. Police Constable Harford also fired two shots. The appellant dropped the shotgun and gave himself up. Meetoo said he ran up to the appellant and identified himself to him as a police officer and the appellant replied, “Meetoo I know you.” The appellant was asked whether he had a licence for the gun and/or the cartridge and he said no.

8 The shotgun and cartridge were seized, marked and sent for analysis. The certificate of examination of the Police Armourer, Kenneth Best states as follows: “Exhibit registered and numbered 70/91, one homemade shotgun with one 16-guage shotgun cartridge both with markings, GM v. T MC C, 25-6-91 was examined, tested and identified to be a firearm and ammunition within the meaning of the Firearm Act.”

9 During the course of cross examination the witnesses for the State, Police Constables Meetoo and Harford admitted there was another man dose to the appellant, and that he was standing a short distance away. Police Constable Meetoo denied that this other man was running. It was also suggested that the officers had simply pulled up in their car and had started shooting and stated, “stop police.” This was denied.

10 It was also suggested that when this was done the appellant dropped to the ground, the other man stopped, and Meetoo went to some bushes nearby, returned with the shotgun and said, “Look what we find”. He then told the appellant that the gun was his and that he had tried to shoot at the police. This too was denied.

11 The appellant did not testify in his defence nor did he call the witnesses.

The Grounds of Appeal

12 Three grounds of appeal were filed - leave was sought to withdraw Ground 3. The two remaining grounds are:

1

“That the learned trial judge erred in law by failing to define for the jury a firearm or ammunition for the purposes of Firearm Act Ch. 16:01. 2. That the teamed trial Judge failed to properly direct the jury on how to treat the evidence of the armourer.”

13 Both grounds were argued together.

14 Counsel for the appellant in the course of her submission did not further pursue Ground 1. Her main thrust was in respect of Ground 2. Counsel's attention was drawn to the decision in Leroy Clint v. The State where one of the grounds argued was similar to what is now before the court. In that case de la Bastide, C.J....