Newton v R

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Judge: Gordon, J.
• Judgment Date: 07 March 1969
• Neutral Citation: KN 1969 CA 2
• Docket Number: No. 1 of 1969
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Date: 07 March 1969

Court of Appeal

Gordon, J.A.

Lewis, J.A.,

Lewis, C.J.

No. 1 of 1969

Newton

and

R.

Appearances:

N.I.S. Butler for appellant

H.M. Squires for respondent

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Murder.

Facts: Whether the direction of the trial judge on the question of provocation was inadequate. The trial judge directed the jury that the appellant was either guilty of murder or nothing.

Held: That the direction of the trial judge was wrong. That the evidence showed that the deceased had a scissors. Conviction quashed and sentence set aside and in lieu a verdict of manslaughter and a sentence of 5 years imposed.

Gordon, J.

1 On the 29 ^th January 1969, the appellant was found guilty by a jury on an indictment for murder, and sentence of death passed on him by the trial judge, Glasgow J.

2 The appellant has appealed against his conviction on two grounds:

• (i) that the verdict of the jury is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence;

• (ii) that the learned trial judge failed to give the jury any direction on the question of provocation and failed to tell them that on the evidence it was open to them to return a verdict of guilty of manslaughter if they found the existence of lawful provocation.

3 The facts of the case were as follows:

4 On Saturday night, the 20 ^th July 1968, one, Eardley Garnett, had a party at his home at Cranstoun's Estate; music was in progress, and a number of curious people collected in his yard adjoining the roadway. Among the onlookers were Wendell Hazell, the deceased, and Abraham Newton, the appellant. At about 11.00 p.m., Garnett and William Powell, an invitee to the party, had occasion to ask the people in the yard to leave, whereupon the deceased left the yard and went on the roadway, as did many others. The deceased then turned to go to his home, which was in the vicinity and, as he went past the appellant who was on the roadway, the appellant taunted him by telling him that no one had invited him to the party. Turning, he asked who had made the remark and, on the appellant saying that it was he and that he, the deceased, could do him nothing, the deceased turned around, walked back towards the appellant with his hand in the vicinity of his hip pocket. The versions given by the prosecution and the appellant as to what happened then vary considerably. According to Adina Hazell, a sister of the deceased, and the only eyewitness called by the prosecution; the appellant stabbed the deceased in the chest with a knife as soon as the deceased got up to him. According to the appellant, the deceased approached him menacingly with a knife telling him he was out to kill him, whereupon he pulled out an old knife, which he had in his pocket, made a thrust at the deceased, and ran off down the road.

5 Regardless of these versions, the fact remained that the deceased, although not realising it, was stabbed fatally. He walked a little way up the road where he was seen with bloodstains on his shirt, and collapsed falling forward on his face and his hands. When turned over a pair of scissors was found to be under him.

6 He was rushed to hospital where he died the same night. According to Dr. Jacobs who rendered medical aid the same night and who performed the post mortem, death was due to haemorrhage from a penetrating wound of the heart. Before this Court, counsel for the appellant urged in support of his first ground of appeal that the verdict was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence, the unreliability of Adina Hazels as a...