PC (Jamaica) The defendants appealed against convictions for non-capital murder. Because of delays, the defendants had served almost the full minimum sentence.
Held: The trial judge had heard a plea of no case to answer before the jury. This was incorrect. The court of appeal had applied the proviso to maintain the convictions, and an appellate court should be careful before overturning such a decision, but the Board could not say that the defendants would inevitably have been convicted. The convictions were overturned.
Citations:
(Appeal No 14 of 2001)
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Rupert Crosdale v The Queen PC 6-Apr-1995
(Jamaica) A court’s insistence that a submission of no case to answer must be made in the presence of jury was unfair. When considering submissions of no case to answer, the judge should invite the jury to retire and, if he decided to reject the . .
Cited – Mitchell v The Queen PC 24-Jan-1998
(Bahamas) The judge’s decision on a voire dire to determine the admissibility of a confession should not be revealed to the jury since it might cause unfair prejudice to the defendant by conveying the impression that the judge had reached a . .
Cited – Stirland v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1944
The House considered what was the appropriate test for allowing a conviction to stand despite the finding of an irregularity in the trial.
Held: The House must be satisfied that there was ‘a situation a reasonable jury, after being properly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Criminal Practice
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.168105