JUDGE COMMENDED CROWN COUNSEL
BASSETERRE St. Kitts, February 14th, 2014 -- On Friday 7 February 2014 at the St. Christopher Circuit Court saw the conclusion of very challenging and tough case for the prosecution. The trial lasted for one (1) week
The case covered a period in 2010 through to 2011, and the jury heard that the parties were known to each other. And on two (2) separate occasions in 2010 the accused allegedly committed the offences against the complainant and in 2011 the accused allegedly committed two (2) more offences against the complainant.
The case involved complex questions of law from the outset regarding the indictment as well as constitutional issues arising out of the indictment. The defence also argued against the admission of evidence as to the recent complaint and at the end of the Crown's Case made a no-case submission. All these defence submissions were resisted by the Crown and following submissions by Crown Counsel Gordon the trial Judge ruled in the Crown's favour.
Following closing speeches by counsel and the judge's summing up, the accused was found not guilty of all charges. After the verdict was delivered the trial judge in the presence of the jury publicly commended Crown Counsel Gordon for the manner in which she conducted the Crown's case.
APPEAL DISMISSED
On Tuesday 11 February 2014 at the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal sat at the Lee Llewlling More Judicial Complex the Appeal Justices heard the appeal of Jami Wilkinson of Nevis.
Jami Wilkinson was convicted on 12 April 2011 for the offence of Wounding With Intent which was committed on 27 September 2010, and he was sentenced to five (5) years in prison on 18 April 2011.
Jami Wilkinson appealed against his conviction and sentenced on the following grounds;
Conviction
1. Error of the Judge in summation to the jury on self-defence
2. Error of judgement in summation to the jury on the role of he Prosecution in disproving self-defence
3. Error of the Judge in summation to the jury in relation to inconsistencies and discrepancies
Sentence
1. Sentence was unduly harsh, and should be revised down
The Court of Appeal, however, found no merit in the majority of he points advanced as grounds of the appeal, and found no merit in any of the grounds of the appeal.
In relation to the points the Appeal Justices entertained, they made the following findings;
1. "This court having reviewed the summation of the Judge in its entirety is of the view that the learned Trial Judge sufficiently directed the jury on Self-Defence. The summation when considered as a whole would have conveyed to the jury that they were required to consider the issue of the appellant's honest belief, that he was in danger and acted in Self-Defence.
2. This court is further 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. In fact, the Judge indicated that the appellant was not required to prove that he was acting in Self-Defence.
On the issue of sentence, both sides agree that the Notional Sentence was between five (5) and seven (7) years, the mitigating factors considered were;
1. The age of the appellant (20 years)
2. The appellant having no previous conviction
3. The appellant being a National and Regional Cricketer
The aggravating Factors were;
1. The seriousness and nature of the offence
2. The fact that the injuries inflicted were life threatening
This court finds that the mitigating factors and the aggravating factors balanced out each other, this court therefore, finds that there is no need to disturb the sentence of the learned Trial Judge. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed."
The sitting Justices are Lord President, Justice Baptist, Madam Justice of Appeal, Gertel Thom, and His Lordship, Justice of Appeal, Mario Mitchel.
The Respondent in the case was the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Appellant was represented by Attorney, Mr. John Cato.
*************************
DISCLAIMER
This article was posted in its entirety as received by SKNVibes.com. This media house does not correct any spelling or grammatical error within press releases and commentaries. The views expressed therein are not necessarily those of SKNVibes.com, its sponsors or advertisers
