BASSETERRE, St. Kitts - WILLIAM BENJAMIN had hoped to leave the Basseterre High Court, where the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court of Appeal is currently sitting, with a lighter sentence but was instead sent back to Her Majesty's Prison bearing the same life imprisonment.
Benjamin had appealed against his murder conviction and life sentence after he was found guilty in 2008 for killing his sister-in-law Michelle Weekes-Benjamin, an offense which took place on October 30, 2006.
His case was heard yesterday (Mar. 14) with the Prosecution team being lead by Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Paulina Hendrickson and Benjamin being represented by Attorney-at-Law Chesley Hamilton, while the Court of Appeal was headed by Chief Justice His Lordship Hugh Rawlins.
Hamilton, in arguing Benjamin's case, said that the trial judge, Justice Francis Belle, wrestled with the issue of provocation throughout his summation in the case, which was what the defence's case rested on, and therefore misled the jury.
According to Hamilton, provocation by definition in law states, "Provocation is some act or series of acts done or words spoken which would cause in any reasonable person an actual cause in that person of sudden or temporary loss of self control rendering in this case...such actions making him for the moment not master of his mind."
Hamilton disputed that the trial judge gave his opinion while summarising the case and told the jury that he did not see the actions taken by Benjamin meeting the grounds for a provocation defence, and that he did not think that the evidence presented supported it either.
He also disputed that the trial judge erred when he advised the jury that the length of time between when Benjamin saw the act that supposedly provoked him and went to look for a weapon and when he confronted his sister-in-law and killed her was enough time for him to have calmed himself and regained control of his mind.
He further disputed that the trial judge also erred in law when he appeared to have taken away the issue of provocation from the jury, telling its members not to consider it when making their judgment, and that the issue of whether or not it was relevant and the evidence presented supported it was a decision that should have been left for the jury.
He then argued that in doing so, the jury had no choice but to render a guilty verdict which was unfair, since provocation was what the defence case was built on.
Hamilton implied that the jury should have convicted Benjamin for manslaughter instead of murder.
Hamilton therefore asked the judge to reduce his client’s conviction from murder to manslaughter and his sentence from life imprisonment to a definite sentence.
DPP Hendrickson, in her argument, stated that the trial judge did not err in law when he took the issue of provocation from the jury.
"Based on the fact that we still apply the Common Law in St. Kitts, the judge was within his rights to take provocation from the jury."
She also said that the judge was entitled to state his opinion on the evidence that was presented before him.
She argued that the trial judge did not mislead the jury and he directed that if they found there was no justification in the evidence for Benjamin taking that step, they would have to look at the case as one of murder or nothing, "unless, of course, you find for some reason or another there was no intention to kill".
She further argued that the jury was also directed that if they did find some other reason, they could have rendered a judgment that would be reduced to manslaughter.
Additionally, she argued that considering the nature of the offence and the fact that the jury found Benjamin guilty of murder, the sentence imposed was justified.
The Justices of Appeal agreed with the prosecution's arguments and dismissed the appeal brought by Benjamin.
"We are of the view that the definition of provocation that was given by the learned judge does not appear to be flawed and was a very correct definition. It is very clear from the summation and from the evidence from the submissions that were made, the manner in which the judge looked at the facts as they would have been in relation to provocation and the words sudden and temporary loss of control were very important.
“When you look at the evidence given, it very clear that the circumstances were not such that it would have led to the defence of provocation. The judge, in our view, was quite correct in withdrawing provocation from the jury. As we know under the Common Law, the judge had that jurisdiction and that is the jurisdiction which he advised in this case," the Chief Justice explained.
The Chief Justice then dismissed the appeal against conviction as well as the appeal against sentence.
He however imposed a time-line by which an application could be made to the High Court in 25 years for a review of Benjamin's sentence, since there is no parole administration in the Federation.
At that time, if Benjamin can show the he is reformed or making progress, then and only then he may be released.
William Benjamin was convicted by a 12-member jury for smothering his sister-in-law to death while she was in her bedroom, after he claimed to have seen her spitting in his food.
According to Benjamin during his trial, he went searching for a weapon and, not finding any, went into Michelle's bedroom to confront her but found her seemingly asleep and smothered her.
Benjamin testified that after she was dead, with the use of duct tape and plastic wrap, he bound Michelle’s hands and feet, covered her face and wrapped her in a sheet, called for assistance, placed her and the mattress in a van and dumped the body.
The body was dumped in the septic tank of a building that, at that time, was under construction at Rosemary Lane, Basseterre and was discovered by workers on Wednesday, November 1, 2006.
Twenty-eight prosecution witnesses gave evidence in this case along with Benjamin and Shervin 'Squeaky' George who was also convicted for being an accessory to the crime.
