Hanley v The Queen

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Judge: Liverpool, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 14 November 1994
• Neutral Citation: KN 1994 CA 8
• Date: 14 November 1994
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1994

Court of Appeal

Floissac, C.J.; Liverpool, J.A.; Singh, J.A.

Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1994

Hanley

and

The Queen

Appearances:

Mr. J. Emile Ferdinand and Mr. D.E.S. Kelsick for the Appellant.

Mrs. Joan Joyner, D.P.P. for the Respondent.

Appeal - Appeal against conviction — Appellant convicted of offence of causing death by dangerous driving, disqualified from driving for two years and fined $5,000 — Contended that judge failed to direct jurors that they could return alternative verdict of dangerous driving — Whether accused deprived of a real chance of a conviction for the lesser offence — Jury directed that they ought to believe or disbelieve evidence of a witness — Not directed that witness could be mistaken — Whether direction amounted to a misdirection — Defence not adequately put to jury — Verdict of dangerous driving substituted for verdict of causing death by dangerous driving and period of disqualification reduced to 18 months.

Liverpool, J.A.

1 On 25th January,1994 the appellant was convicted by a Jury before Hylton, J. of the offence of causing depth by dangerous driving. He Was fined $5,000.00 and disqualified from holding a driver's licence for two years from 25th January, 1994. At the end of the heating of this appeal we substituted a conviction of dangerous driving and reduced the period of disqualification to 18 months, but confirmed the fine. We now give reasons for our decision.

2 Quite shortly what happened was that the appellant was driving his landrover through the village of Sandy Point at a speed estimated variously to be between 40 and 90 miles per hour, in an area with a seed limit of 20 miles per hour, when his vehicle struck Shanel Evans who died shortly afterwards from the wounds received. There was a considerable body of evidence that the accused was driving at a fast speed, and the main question at the trial, as indeed it was on the hearing of the appeal, was whether it was the appellant's driving which caused the death or whether the deceased stepped in front of the landrover.

3 The deceased was a seven year old girl who was deaf. She had walked along an alley with her mother, who was about six feet behind, to catch her school bus. The alley which is approximately 5 feet wide runs in a north to south direction and ends at the main road which runs in an easterly to westerly direction. There is a side walk approximately 2 feet wide along the length of the main road; and the school bus was parked on the southern side of the main road facing west. The deceased therefore had to cross the main road in Order to enter into the bus.

4 Four eyewitnesses to the accident gave evidence for the prosecution. Iris Evans the mother of the deceased; Annette Thomas a school teacher who was seated in the bus; Joseph Cambron the bus driver; and Cardin Walters a police officer. The first three witnesses stated that the deceased was at the edge of the main road when the jeep struck her; but Constable Walters said that the deceased had stepped about two feet from the side walk into the mains road, and was moving towards the. bus when she was struck. Both the appellant and a passenger, in his landrover stated in evidence that the deceased ran across the road in front of the vehicle which was being driven by the appellant.

5 Learned Counsel for the appellant raised seven grounds of appeal but the only grounds which fall for consideration are the following:

• 1. The learned Judge failed to direct the jury that they could return an alternative verdict of dangerous driving if they were of the view that the accused was driving dangerously, but this was not the cause of the death of the deceased.

• 4. The learned trial Judge misdirected the jury by stating……. you saw the Teacher, you determine if you find her to be a consummate liar, if you accept her when she tells you the child stood on the edge of the road. A matter for you”. In that she was telling he jury that either the teacher was telling the truth or she was a consummate liar, and did not direct the Jury, that the teacher could have been honestly mistaken.

• 7. The learned trial Judge did not adequately put the defence of the appellant to the Jury in that in the appellant's defence she failed to point out to the jury that the nature of the damage to the appellant's vehicle may have supported the evidence of the appellant and his witness that the deceased ran across the road in the path of the appellant's vehicle.

GROUND 1

6 Towards the conclusion of the learned judge's summing-up the following exchange took place:

“That's all the evidence Mr. Foreman and members of the Jury. I have told you as best I can the Law as it applies to the case.

Now Counsel for the Defence and the Prosecution do you agree that there is an alternative to causing Death by Dangerous Driving?

Mr. D.P.P.

No please My Lordship.

You have heard the D.P.P. Mr. Foreman and members of the Jury, they are relying only on the Count which is before you —Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.

………………

Is there anything Counsel for the Defence or Prosecution wishes me to say?

...