(Jamaica) Special leave was granted to the defendant to appeal his conviction for murder. Counsel had been late for his trial, and the jury empanelled. When counsel arrived he said the defendant had not understood the judge. A trial took place as to whether he was mute of malice. He was found so, and counsel applied to withdraw saying he had been unable to get instructions. The trial took place without counsel. When the defendant made incoherent noisy outbursts, he was gagged.
Held: It could not be said that the defendant had not had opportunity to instruct counsel. The defendant having been found mute of malice the judge was entitled in his discretion to proceed. As to an alleged failure in the direction on identification evidence, it was the substance of the direction which mattered. The criticisms together did not justify setting aside the conviction.
Citations:
[1997] UKPC 62
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Sharp (Note) 1960
If a defendant refuses to take part in his trial, as if he absconds, in order to prevent trial he may not rely on silence or absence to avoid or postpone trial. . .
Cited – Regina v Jones (Robert) No 2 1972
The court was entitled to proceed to hear the case in the absence of the defendant where he had absconded. I was counsel’s prerogative not the judge’s, to decide whether he could continue to represent the defendant. . .
Cited – Dunkley and Robinson v The Queen PC 1-Nov-1994
(Jamaica) The appellant’s counsel had walked out of a murder trial after a dispute with the judge, leaving the appellant unrepresented for the remainder of the proceedings.
Held: A defendant in a capital murder case is to be allowed to find . .
Cited – Robinson v The Queen PC 1985
Where a defendant found himself unrepresented on the day of trial, an adjournment should be granted. The constitutional right to representation was not a guarantee of representation but a right for the defendant to arrange representation at his own . .
Cited – Regina v Turnbull and Another etc CCA 9-Jun-1976
The defendants appealed against their convictions which had been based upon evidence of visual identification.
Held: Identification evidence can be unreliable, and courts must take steps to reduce injustice. The judge should warn the jury of . .
Cited – Junior Reid, Roy Dennis and Oliver Whylie v The Queen; Errol Reece, Robert Taylor and Delroy Quelch v the Queen PC 27-Jul-1989
PC (Jamaica) . .
Cited – Scott v The Queen PC 1989
The Board was asked whether sworn depositions of two deceased witnesses should have been admitted.
Held: A warning should be given when admitting identification involving communications between spouses. A conviction based on uncorroborated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159275