BASSETERRE, St. Kitts - A wounding with intent appeal brought before the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court of Appeal yesterday (Feb. 11) has been dismissed.
The case was that of Jamie Wilkinson, who was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison for wounding a man for whom he had worked.
Wilkinson, who was represented by attorney John Cato, appealed both his conviction and sentence.
Cato argued against conviction on two grounds; one of which is that "the learned trial judge failed to direct the jury on the issue of self defence".
The lawyer - argued at - length that the trial judge ought to have directed the jury that in considering whether or not Wilkinson was acting in self defence, they had to also consider whether he had the belief that he was being subjected to immediate terror. He said the trial judge erred in not doing so.
He also forwarded that no direction was given concerning the burden which rests on the prosecution to disprove self defence. Referencing the judge's summation in the trial transcript, Cato complained that His Lordship put the burden of proof on the defence rather than the prosecution.
And regarding sentencing, Cato stated that a notional sentence of five to seven years would have sufficed and the mitigating factors - which he claimed the trial judge failed to take into consideration - would have brought the end sentence to less than five years.
While he did not argue that the five-year sentence was excessive, he stressed that the trial judge should have considered the mitigating circumstances.
The prosecution, lead by Counsel O'Neil Simpson, responded by stating that in his summation, the trial judge is not required to use any specific words in directing the jury on a particular issue.
He argued that it is sufficient if the jury is directed on the substance of the issue in question.
Simpson also expressed that the trial judge correctly directed the jury, on several occasions, on the burden of proof which he said was on the prosecution.
He stated that the trial judge made it clear to the jury that the defence did not have to prove self defence but it was on the prosecution to disprove it.
In delivering the judgment, one of the Justices stated that, having reviewed the summation, there was no error made on the part of the trial judge in his direction to the jury.
"This Court, having reviewed the summation of the learned trial judge in its entirety on the issue of self defence is of the view that the learned trial judge adequately directed the jury on the issue of self defence.”
She said the Court was of the view that the trial judge did inform the jury that it was required to consider the issue of the appellant's honest belief as to whether his life was threatened and whether his response was reasonable in the circumstances.
"The Court...is of the view that the learned trial judge, on several occasions, directed the jury that the burden was upon the prosecution to prove that the appellant was not acting in self defence.
"The learned trial judge specifically directed the jury that the appellant did not have to prove he was acting in self defence," she said regarding the issue of burden of proof.
She said several references were made and she specified the pages of the transcript where the judge did adequately direct the jury.
Regards to sentencing, the Justice said the mitigating factors were indeed laid out by the trial judge as well as the aggravating factors, which included the serious nature of the offence and the life-threatening resulting injuries.
She said both the mitigating and aggravating factors "balanced out each other".
"In the circumstances, the Court finds that there is no need to disturb the sentence imposed by the learned trial judge.”
The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.
