Tweede v The Queen

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Judge: Singh, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 10 January 1994
• Neutral Citation: KN 1994 CA 2
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1993
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Date: 10 January 1994

Court of Appeal

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

Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1993

Tweede

and

The Queen

Appearances:

Dr. Henry Browne for the Appellant.

Mr. Malcolm Holdip, D.P.P.; Misses Yasmine Clarke and D. Claxton-Morris with him for the Respondent.

Practice and procedure - Summing up — Appellant convicted of larceny — Main prosecution evidence came from suspect witnesses — Corroboration warning given — No explanation as to meaning of corroboration — Whether omission amounted to serious misdirection.

Singh, J.A.

1 On January 15th, 1993, the appellant, a baggage attendant working with American Airlines at the Golden Rock International Airport in this Federation, was convicted by a Jury before Velma Hylton, J. of the offence of Larcency contrary to S. 4 of The Larcency Act, Chapter 41 of The Revised Edition 1961 of The Laws of St. Christopher and Nevis. He was sentenced to pay a fine of $7,500: by March 31, 1993 in default to serve 18 in imprisonment. He appeals from this conviction.

2 The case for the prosecution was that on January 15, 1992, at the Golden Rock International Airport, the appellant stole one Toshiba Video Cassette Recorder valued $1,040; which was part of the luggage of one Alvan Browne who was intransit at the Airport on his way to Nevis from St. Maarten. The evidence relied on by the prosecution which purported to. implicate the appellant came solely from witnesses who it is accepted were suspect witnesses because of their knowledge of or dealings with the VCR before it allegedly disappeared from the terminal building. This made it necessary for the Judge to warn the Jury of the danger of acting on such evidence without corroboration. The record shows that the trial Judge included this warning in her summing-up. I need not set it out here but it is the classic warning of the danger of convicting without corroboration.

3 The complaint of learned Counsel for the appellant however is that the trial Judge merely gave the warning without going on to explain to the Jury what was meant by corroboration. This is conceded by the learned Director of Public Prosecutions and the record hears this out. The main issue for the consideration of this Court is whether, in the circumstances of this case, this omission by the trial Judge was a non-direction amounting to a misdirection that was fatal to the conviction. I may mention here that the record shows no evidence which was capable of affording corroboration of the evidence of the suspect witnesses. This also is accepted by both sides.

4 In R v. Clyne (1960) 44 Cr. App. Rep. 158 it was held that where a Judge is required, as a matter of law or practice, to give the Jury a warning on corroboration, he must tell the Jury what is meant in law by corroboration in order to make the warning intelligible. St real field who gave the Judgment of the Court said at p.161:

“No particular language is necessary to describe it, but it is at least necessary to explain to the jury that what is required is sonic independent evidence of sonic material fact which implicates the accused and tends to confirm that lie is guilty of the offence,”

5 In R v. Goddard and Another [1962] 3 All E.R. 582 Lord Parker, C.J. on this issue had this to say at P. 586:

“Quite clearly, it is idle to give that direction simpliciter in a case where in fact there is no evidence capable of amounting to corroboration, because the very fact that the direction is given would leave the jury to infer that there was sonic evidence capable of amounting to corroboration, if they looked for it. Equally, in a case. as in many sexual cases, where there is a danger that the jury, will...