(Trinidad and Tobago) A failure to inform a suspect before interview of his right to see a lawyer did not make the interview inadmissible despite the constitutional infringement. It was not as serious as a failure to give fair trial. The judge’s discretion was complete. Not only had the judge been wrong to allow prosecuting counsel to make any speech at all (the defence having called no evidence), but in prosecuting counsel’s speech: ‘The prosecutor informed the jury of his view that the defendant was plainly guilty. He made emotional appeals for sympathy for the deceased and his family. He demanded that the jury should not let the defendant ‘get away with it’. He repeatedly ‘urged’ the jury to convict. His speech contained many inflammatory passages. The prosecutor had commenced his speech by saying ‘I act as a minister of justice.’ The contrary is the case: the prosecutor made a wholly improper speech. The judge’s interventions during the speech were perfunctory. And in his summing up the judge did not direct the jury to disregard the speech. The judge told the jury in general terms not to be swayed by emotion but he said nothing to counteract the prejudice which the speech of the prosecutor was calculated to generate in the minds of the jurors.’
Judges:
Lord Steyn
Citations:
Times 10-Dec-1998, [1998] UKPC 49, [1999] 2 AC 111
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Richard Hinds v The Attorney General and The Superintendent of Glendairy Prison PC 5-Dec-2001
(Barbados) The appellant argued that the denial of free legal representation at his trial infringed his constitutional rights. He had been faced with a charge of arson, but was told the complexity of the case did not require legal assistance. The . .
Cited – Mantoor Ramdhanie and others v The State PC 15-Dec-2005
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed his conviction, saying he had not been properly able to pur forward his evidence of good character. The judge had prevented the defence putting questions to show a . .
Cited – Simmons and Another v Regina PC 3-Apr-2006
(Bahamas) The appellants challenged admission of confession statements at their trial. A statement was not to be admitted without proof hat it had not been obtained by oppression.
Held: The defendant would have failed in a submission of no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence, Commonwealth
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159329