Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, 13 April 2026 -- On Friday, 10 April 2026, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) delivered reasons for its decision in the matter of The King v Hallet King, Leonard Nunez [2026] CCJ 6 (AJ) BZ, an appeal from Belize. The Court had earlier heard the matter on Tuesday 20 January 2026, where it allowed the appeal of the Crown and reinstated the manslaughter convictions of two police officers. At the hearing, the Respondents had conceded the main ground of appeal and that left for the Court’s determination the trial court’s admission of photographs which the Respondents alleged to be prejudicial. The Court in its reasons explained the relevance of the photographs and concluded that the jury was entitled to use them in their consideration of the verdict.
In the proceedings, the Crown appealed the Court of Appeal’s reversing of the convictions of the Respondents, Hallet King and Leonard Nunez, two former Belizean policemen who were convicted on a single count of manslaughter for the unlawful death of Hilbert Sotz, while he was in police custody. The two men were initially sentenced to nine months of imprisonment. The Respondents successfully appealed their convictions to the Court of Appeal, on grounds that the trial judge erred in two respects: (i) for failing to instruct the jury that a charge of manslaughter required the prosecution to prove that the accused intended to cause death by unlawful harm; and, (ii) for allowing the prosecution to introduce photographs that were more prejudicial, that is inflammatory, than they were able to prove the charge being prosecuted.
On further appeal, the CCJ Judges mainly addressed the second ground of appeal, as counsel for the Respondents conceded that the Court of Appeal erred in deciding the first. As to that second ground of appeal, the Court found that the photographs formed part of the overall evidence from which the jury was legally free to infer whether the Respondents intended to cause Mr Hotz the harm that led to his death. For that reason, the evidence was not unduly prejudicial. The Court, therefore, allowed the Crown’s appeal and reinstated the convictions of the Respondents. Consequently, the CCJ remitted the matter to the Court of Appeal for a determination of the appropriate sentencing.
The appeal was heard by the Honourable Justices Rajnauth-Lee, Barrow, Jamadar, Ononaiwu, and Eboe-Osuji. Mrs Cheryl-Lynn Vidal, SC, Director of Public Prosecutions, and Ms Maria Nembhard-Santana, Crown Counsel, represented the Appellant, while Mr Arthur Robert Saldivar represented the Respondents.
?The full CCJ judgment is available on its website at www.ccj.org.
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
Belize News