Simeon Ible Appellant v The Queen Respondent [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Judge: ROBOTHAM, C.J.,Chief Justice
• Judgment Date: 21 February 1985
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1985] ECSC J0221-1
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1 of 1984
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Date: 21 February 1985

[1985] ECSC J0221-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Robotham — chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice Bishop

The Honourable Mr. Justice Byron (Acting)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1 of 1984

Between:

Simeon Ible

Appellant

and

The Queen

Respondent

Appearances:

Henry Browne for the Appellant

E. Ferdinand and G. Nisbett for the Crown.

1 ROBOTHAM, C.J. delivered the Judgment of the Court:

2 This appellant was convicted on 14th June, 1984, for the murder of Helena Saunders and was sentenced to death.

3 The facts of the case are not in dispute. The appellant was a neighbour of the deceased. There was no positive evidence of any previous hostility between the appellant and the deceased. On June 27, 1983 at about 10.15 a.m. the deceased was in her yard washing when the appellant entered the yard and started pulling her. He was armed with a machette, and a piece of pipe, and he had also a trowel in his hand. He threw the deceased to the ground and whilst sitting on her back, was seen to be stabbing her all over her head with the trowel. He desisted after an alarm was made, and whilst neighbours were cleaning the blood off the deceased who was then still alive, the appellant returned to the yard. The neighbours fled on seeing that the appellant was armed with a 3 foot length piece of pipe. The appellant approached the deceased as she lay on the ground and hit her several times with the pipe.

4 The only evidence suggestive of any hostility on the part of the accused towards the deceased came from Evelyn Saunders the sister of the deceased. She said in her evidence that the appellant whilst never speaking to anyone in the home where she lived with the deceased and others, yet he was always abusing them. Further, Angella Saunders, a cousin of the deceased said that whilst the deceased was washing on that morning, the appellant was seen peeping through the bush fence armed with the machette, and she heard him say "he aint fraid of Helena".

5 Dr. Ian Jacobs who performed the post mortem examination found that the deceased was about 34 weeks pregnant. She had in particular a large wound at the right side of the head with extensive skull fracture. A piece of the skull bone 4 x 3 centimeters was missing and the brain was badly damaged with some of the brain tissue being found near the surface of the wound. Death was due to head injury with extensive damage to the brain tissue inflicted with considerable force, by a weapon such as the piece of pipe which was seen in the hands of the appellant.

6 It is a significant feature of the trial that there was no challenge to the Crown's case as Counsel for the appellant had not been successful in getting the appellant to communicate with him. The only witness for the defence was Dr. Arthur Lake a medical practitioner since 1937, who told told the Court that he had been engaged in the field of psychiatry for 20 years.

7 Prior to the trial, the issue of the appellant's fitness to plead was taken. Dr. Lake gave evidence on this preliminary issue and the jury after deliberations found him fit to plead.

8 The appellant having been convicted of murder, now appeals to this Court on three grounds:

• (1) The learned trial Judge erred in law in that he failed to direct the jury that if they believed the evidence of the witness for the defence Dr. Lake that the accused was of an unstable mental condition at the material time that they were duty bound to return a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

• (2) Having regard to the evidence of Dr. Lake the learned Judge erred in law in failing to direct the jury on the distinction between disease of the mind and disease of the brain.

• (3) The verdict is unreasonable and unsafe having regard to all the evidence.

9 Dr. Lake, the only witness for the defence, testified that he first examined the appellant in December, 1979, and concluded then that he was suffering from a mental disorder which he diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia. He had treated him almost continuously at the clinic since that date and last saw him on August 30, 1983, some two months after he committed the act. On that date he gave a medical certificate from which he was allowed to refresh his memory at the trial. It stated that he saw the appellant "on 1st June, 1982 and subsequently afterwards when he suffered from acute schizophrenia with violent paranoid delusions. I am of the opinion that the said Simeon Ible is...