Ramroop v R

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Wooding, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 26 October 1964
• Neutral Citation: TT 1964 CA 61
• Docket Number: No. 19 of 1964
• Date: 26 October 1964

Court of Appeal

Wooding, C.J., Hyatali, J.A.; Phillips J.A

No. 19 of 1964

Ramroop

and

Regina

Mr. W. Ali appeared for the appellant.

Mr. A.C. Rienzi, Assistant Solicitor-General appeared for the Crown.

Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction — Murder — Corroboration

Practice and Procedure - Trial by jury — Inconsistent statements — Whether judge's direction adequate — Defence — Whether defence properly put to jury

Facts: Appellant made application for leave to appeal against his conviction on a charge of murder. Argued that there were certain matters which ought to have been corroborated and to which the judge ought to have called the jury's attention

Facts: Appellant made application for leave against his conviction for murder. On appeal argued that judge erred in his directions to the jury concerning in consistent statements, and that failed to put the case for the defence properly or at all to the jury

Held: It is not every material particular which is required to be corroborated. The corroborative evidence must be in some material particular tending to show that the crime was committed and that the prisoner was the person who committed the crime. Application refused. Conviction and sentence affirmed.

Held: Judge cannot be said to have erred by putting the matter to the jury the way he did. It was essentially for the jury to determine whether the variations were variations of substance of not having regard to the whole of the evidence. With regards to the appellant's defence. The summing-up given by the judge was impeccable. Application refused. Conviction and sentence affirmed.

Wooding, C.J.

1 This is an application by Sonny Ramroop for leave to appeal against his conviction on a charge of the murder of Ishlal Chootoo on the 21st day of September, 1962, at El Socorro Road, San Juan. The only substantial ground on which this application appears to be based is, in our opinion, that it is a conviction for murder because the grounds that have been put forward and argued are so utterly without substance as to amount to no grounds at all. We will deal with them briefly.

2 Complaint has been made with respect to the learned judge's summing-up on the question of corroboration. As we see it, the learned judge took his directions practically verbatim from the classic authorities on the subject. And, indeed, he expressly stated to the jury that he was doing so in accordance with a case that was decided by the House of Lords in 1954. He pointed out that:

“In a criminal trial where a person who is an accomplice gives evidence on behalf of the prosecution it is the duty of the judge to warn the jury that although they may convict on his evidence it is dangerous to do so unless it is corroborated.”

3 His second pronouncement was that:

“This rule, although a rule of practice, has now the force of a rule of law.”

4 He then went on to define corroboration saying:

“By corroboration is meant some independent piece of evidence which affects the prisoner by tending to connect him with the crime; that is, evidence, direct or circumstantial, which implicates the prisoner, which confirms in some material particular not only the evidence of the witness that the crime has been committed but also that the prisoner committed it”.

5 As we pointed out in the course of the argument, the definition of corroboration is not such as to require corroboration in every material particular, because if that were required there would be need really for the evidence of the accomplice at all. It is that there must be corroboration in some material particular. Finally, the learned judge pointed out that it was not for him to determine whether the corroborative evidence was to be accepted or not. It was for him merely to say what evidence there was that was capable in law of being corroboration, and it was for the jury to say whether they accepted the evidence and, if they did accept it, whether it did in fact amount to corroboration.

6 In our judgment, there can be no possible quarrel with the way in which the matter of corroboration was left to the jury. We were urged, however, that although no complaint can justly be made against the statement of the law and the directions founded on that statement of the law given by the learned judge, nevertheless there were certain matters which ought to have been corroborated and to which the learned judge ought to have called the jury's attention that they were not. One answer to that of course is what has already been stated, that it is not every material particular which is required to be corroborated. The corroborative evidence must be in some material particular tending to show that the crime was committed and that the prisoner was the person who committed the crime, The learned judge did a great deal more however because, when he came to dual with the evidence which he was putting before the jury that could in law amount to corroboration, he painted out that there was really two bits of such evidence. First, the evidence of Clinton and Jack Chootoo who said they had seen a car drive up with the prisoner and the other man Siew Kumar, that they saw it step near the victim's shop premises, that they saw the prisoner speak to Siew Kumar just before he got out of the car, that the car remained there with the prisoner sitting in it while Siew Kumar went in the direction of the shop, that almost immediately afterwards they heard gun shots, and that thereupon the car started up and drove off with the accused still in it. And the learned judge went out of his way to say this:

“That evidence by itself is not really enough and without the evidence of Siew Kumar the Crown will be hard pushed to ask you to accept that piece of evidence of the procuring”.

7 Further, he made it very clear that the reason why he said that that evidence by itself is not enough is because the Crown set out to show, not merely that there was procuration by the prisoner of Siew Kumar, but that he was himself actively participating in the commission of the offence by being present on the scene and seeing it duly carried out.

8 Secondly, he turned to the next bit of evidence which he put to the jury as capable of being corroboration, namely, the evidence of P.C. James and Inspector de Souza. Both these policemen said that when they eventually caught up with the prisoner and arrested him and told him they were arresting him because he was wanted for the murder of Ishlal Chootoo he immediately said to them: “Sweeto” (meaning Ishlal Chootoo) “shoot me; I had to get him before he get me; I got Siew Kumar to shoot him”. That amounted to a confession to the policemen there and then that he had committed the crime with which he was charged and, as is stated in Archbold's on Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice,

“a prisoner's evidence may afford necessary corroboration as may also his conduct in the circumstances of the particular case.”

9 That will extend of course to confessions made by the prisoner. If the prisoner has made a clear confession to the police, or anybody else for that matter, then it can be corroboration and, if the jury accepts the evidence of it, the confession will be corroborative of the evidence of the accomplices and so, when the learned judge finally left the matter to tine jury, this is what he said:

“I have warned you that it is dangerous to convict without corroboration. As I say, you have the evidence of Clinton and Jack Chootoo who were on the scene: on the morning of the 21st September, 1962, That by itself does not take us very far; added to that you have the evidence of P. C. James and Inspector de Souza when the accused was arrested, and they told him he was wanted for the murder of lshlal Chootoo, he the accused said ‘Sweeto shoot me; I had to get him before he get me; I got Siew Kumar to shoot him’. If you believe that story it will be for you to say whether that does or does not amount to corroboration of Siew Kumar's story that he had shot Chootoo...