R v Jl

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Morley J
• Judgment Date: 21 November 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J1121-1
• Docket Number: CASE SKNHCR 2025/0067

Rex

and

JL

[2025] ECSC J1121-1

CASE SKNHCR 2025/0067

IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COUR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

APPEARANCES

Ms Althea Campbell for the Crown.

Mr Chesley Hamilton and Mr Kamau Grant for the defendant.

RULING

On child competence

Morley J

1 JL in late middle age, is charged with indecent assault during 04-07.12.22 KP 1, then aged 12, the allegation as reported by defence Counsel Grant being:

The victim KL was 12 years old at the time of the offence when the Defendant JL…, indecently assaulted the victim. JL is married to S, who is the victim's godmother. The victim's aunt, P, with whom the victim lives, had to travel overseas and left the victim in the care of her godmother. While in her care, on one night, between 4 ^th December 2022 and 7th December 2022, the victim fell asleep in her room and was awakened by the sensation of something pulling on her right breast. When she opened her eyes, she saw the Defendant sucking on her right breast with his mouth. The victim told H the following morning. H told

the victim's godmother who later spoke with the victim and told her not to tell her aunt about the matter. On 14th January 2023, the victim told her aunt about the incident involving the Defendant. They both went to the Sandy Point Police Station to report the incident. On 30th January 2023, Constable Amos Tittle recorded statements from both the victim and the complainant.

2 Argument is raised the committal of the defendant to the High Court under the Voluntary Bill of Indictment Act 2024 (VBI), act 19 of 2024, is flawed, and so the proceedings should stop.

3 The voluntary bill procedure was introduced in 2024 to take indictable cases bound for the High Court out of the magistrates court, or for them to avoid the magistrates court altogether, where there have been many examples of cases being delayed there far too long, for sometimes up to 5 years.

• a. In the past, there had been a procedure where the magistrate would conduct a ‘preliminary inquiry’, which would mean the slow process of hearing oral evidence and reducing it to writing as a ‘deposition’ from each witness, often handwritten, in order to determine if there was a prima facie case, meaning there might be a case to answer to commit to the High Court, being assessment as to if there is admissible evidence which taking it at its highest might mean a properly directed jury could in theory convict of a criminal offence.

• b. However this process took too long and so was replaced by act 33 of 2011 by a paper procedure, called ‘committal proceedings’ where under the amended Part IV Magistrates Code of Procedure Act (MCP), cap 3.17, the magistrate could now receive witness statements, read them without need for slow receipt of oral testimony, and decide whether there was a prima facie case on what was in them.

• c. Such witness statements, for voluntary bill or committal proceeding, had to be admissible on their face, meaning not riddled with improper evidence, like hearsay or opinion or supposition, or if lacking competence like a child not knowing what truth is, which is why each statement had to have the quality of being a deposition about it, where if receiving oral evidence to create a deposition the process would naturally weed out inadmissible material.

• d. This means, if dealing with a person under 16, as required routinely by s13 Evidence Act cap 3.12, it is expected that to establish competence during an oral deposition there would be questions if a child understood good from bad, right from wrong, and lies from truth.

• e. It would follow therefore in a statement being offered for voluntary bill or committal proceeding, there would have to be some words in it to show understanding of truth and lies.

4 Considering this background, the central point concerns whether the statement of KP should have a certification on it she knows the difference between truth and lies; absent this, Counsel Grant submits the statement is inadmissible on its face and therefore cannot be received for the purposes of the voluntary bill procedure as offering evidence of offence.

5 KP's statement of 30.01.23, with further information given on 04.02.23, contains these words, under the declaration of truth signed by her, made when she had just turned 13:

I know the difference between good and bad. Good is when I share with my friends. Bad is when I buse people.

6 I am satisfied these words mean she is trying to communicate she is competent to understand the difference between being good or bad, and that lying would be bad, though the words could have been clearer. I can conclude this from the fact she was 13 and it can usually be reasonably expected a person so aged to know what lying is, absent any indication she might not, for reasons of weakness of intellect or any mental disorder, which here do not arise. Moreover, there is positive evidence she is competent as she was assessed on 28.09.23 and so certified on 30.09.23 by Michelle de la Coudray Blake, Director of the National Counselling Centre in the Ministry of Social Development and Gender Affairs, and I am satisfied from my experience of life and children an understanding of lying has likely not arisen in KP only in the previous 9 months from the date of KP's statement.

7 It follows it is a fact in these proceedings the statement on its face can be received under the voluntary bill procedure.

8 Counsel Grant counters s9 VBI treats a statement offered for the purposes of a voluntary bill as to be deemed a deposition.

9. Witness statements deemed to be deposition.

Every statement purporting to be evidence of witnesses submitted under section 4 shall be deemed a deposition for the purposes of the Evidence Act, Cap. 3.12, the Larceny Act Cap. 4.16, the Perjury Act, Cap. 4.23, Child Justice Act, Cap. 4.15, Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Saint Christopher and Nevis) Act, Cap. 3.11 and the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap. 4.06.

[Underlining added]

9 He next points to s47 MCP, which says a statement offered in committal proceedings is deemed a deposition:

Definitions of “committal proceedings” and “deposition”

47. (1) In this Act, “committal proceedings” means proceedings under this Part for the committal of persons accused of indictable offences for trial by jury.

(2) For the purposes of this Act and any other law, a reference to a deposition in relation to committal proceedings shall be construed as a reference to any statement admitted in any evidence in committal proceedings under this Act.

...