4/9/2016

BENJAMINv.THESTATECariLAWSearchResults

CariLAWCaseResults

Newsearch|ReviseSearch|Backtosearchresults|ViewSelections:0items|PermanentLink
Record39of400records.First|Previous|Next|Last

BENJAMINv.THESTATE
AddtoList
Citation# TT2009CA47
Country TrinidadandTobago
Court CourtofAppeal
Judge Weekes,J.A.YorkeSooHon,J.A.Narine,J.A.
Subject Criminallaw
Date December17,2009
SuitNo. CriminalAppealNo.54of2008
Subsubject RapeBuggaryRobberywithaggravationAppealagainstconvictionand
sentenceWhethertrialjudgewronglyallowedcircumstantialevidenceWhether
trialjudgeerredinnotpermittingtheappellanttoputbeforethejuryevidenceof
previousacquittals.
FullText Appearances:
Mr.Scotlandfortheappellant.
Ms.D.SeetahalS.C.fortherespondent.
THEPROSECUTION'SCASE
NARINE,J.A.:On11thDecember,2008theappellantwasconvictedatthePortof
SpainAssizesofrape,buggeryandrobberywithaggravation.Hewassentencedto
30yearsimprisonmentforrape,23yearsforbuggeryand13yearsforrobberywith
aggravationtorunconcurrently.
TheState'scasewasthatthevirtualcomplainantwasatworkon21stMarch2002,at
ashopwhichsoldhighendbathroomfittingsincludingvanities,faucetsandtubs.It
wasthesoleagentforacertaintypeoffaucet.
Around11.00amtheappellantenteredthestoreandspoketothevirtual
complainant.Hewalkedaroundtheshop,inquiringaboutcertainitems.Thevirtual
complainantansweredhisquestions.Theshopwaslitwithseveralhalogenlightson
thedisplayitems.
Thetelephonerangandthevirtualcomplainantwenttoherdesktoanswerit.The
appellantcametoherdeskandinquiredaboutthepriceofafaucet.Thevirtual
complainantsatatherdeskworkingouttheprice.Shelookedupandsawthe
appellantwithaknifeinhishandthreefeetaway.Hedemandedmoney.Heordered
herintoanadjoiningroomwherehetapedherhandsandeyes.Herobbedherofa
watch,asilverbandandthreerings.Hepushedheruntoarattanseat,wherehe
partiallyundressedher.Hethenhadsexwithherandbuggeredher.Hewas
speakingwithhercontinuouslyashecommittedtheseacts.
Aftertheappellantleft,thevirtualcomplainant,managedtofreeherself.Areportwas
madetothepolice.Shewasmedicallyexamined.Shegaveastatementinwhich
shedescribedherassailant.Laterthatday,thevirtualcomplainant'semployer
discoveredthataFPfaucetandalabellingmachineweremissingfromtheshop.
On5thJune2002Cpl.EmrolBrucearrestedtheappellantatFrederickStreet,Portof
Spain.Uponbeingtoldofthereportandbeingcautionedtheappellantresponded:
http://carilaw.andornot.com/results.aspx?AC=GET_RECORD&XC=/results.aspx&BU=http%3A%2F%2Fcarilaw.andornot.com%2FAdvSearch.aspx&TN=

1/9

4/9/2016

BENJAMINv.THESTATECariLAWSearchResults

"Officerallyoudon'tputmeonanidentificationparade,justchargeinc."On6thJune
2002,Cpl.Bruceexecutedasearchatthehomeoftheappellantat(EndofPage2)
Barataria.Cpl.BrucefoundaFPfaucetwiththelabelC&RFurnishingsanda
BrothersPTlabellingmachineinanareanearthekitchen.Theseitemswerelater
identifiedbythevirtualcomplainant.Thefaucetwasofabrandsoldonlybyher
shop.
On6thJune2002theappellantrefusedtogoonanidentificationparade,upon
beingaskedbyInspectorNeroifhewaswillingtodoso.Aconfrontationwas
arrangedthatday.Thevirtualcomplainantidentifiedtheappellantasthemanwho
hadrapedandrobbedher.Therespondentdeniedthathecommittedtheoffences.
THEDEFENCECASE
Inhisdefencetheappellantdeniedthathecommittedtheoffencesandallegedthat
itwasacaseofmistakenidentity.Hefurtherallegedthatthepolicehadfabricated
thecaseagainsthim.
Theappellantgaveevidenceatthetrialandcalledfourwitnessesinhisdefence.He
deniedthathewasarrestedatFrederickStreet,PortofSpain.Hetestifiedthathe
wasdrivinghisBMW7seriescaronWrightsonRoad,whenhewasstoppedbyCpl.
Boxhillandotherpoliceofficersaround7.00pm.Cpl.Boxhillaskedhimifitwashis
car,andherepliedsarcasticallythathehadstolenit.Thepolicedrewtheirgunsand
orderedhimoutofthecar.Hewaspushedtotheground,searched,arrestedand
takentoSt.VincentStreet,C.I.D.Hewassubsequentlytakentohishomewherea
searchwascarriedout.Cpl.Boxhillseizedhiscamcorderandhispassport.No
faucetorlabellingmachinewasfound.Thepolicewerefabricatingevidenceagainst
himbecausehehadthreatenedtosuethemforwrongfularrestandassault.
REBUTTALEVIDENCE
TheStatewaspermittedtocallGeorgeKurbanali,theformerowneroftheBMWcar,
andemployeesoftheLicensingOfficewithrespecttothetransferofownershipofthe
car.Mr.Kurbanalitestifiedthatheboughtthecarin1997.Itwasinanaccidenton
24thJuly,2003.Helatersoldittotheappellantasawreck.Heproducedreceipts
dated21stOctober2003and1stNovember203tosupporthisevidenceofthetime
thathesoldthecar.ThecarwastransferredtotheappellantinOctober2003.(End
ofPage3)
TherewasconflictingevidencefromtheemployeesoftheLicensingOfficeasto
whetherthepurchaserhadtobepresentattheLicensingOfficeinordertoeffecta
transferofownership.
TheDefencewasallowedtoreopenitscasetocallPrisonsOfficerAdolphus
Jeremiewhotestifiedthattheappellantwasinprisonfrom28thOctober2003tothe
endofDecember2003.
PREVIOUSTRIALS
Itshouldbenotedaswellthatthereweretwoprevioustrialswithrespecttothese
offences.InMarch2006thetrialjudgeupheldanocasesubmissionwithrespectto
theoffencesofrape,buggeryandonecountrobbery.Thejurywereinvitedto
considerasecondcountofrobberywithanalternativeverdictofreceiving.They
wereundecidedontherobbery.However,amajorityverdictofnotguiltywas
acceptedonthealternativecountofreceiving.
AtasecondtrialinApril2008,thetrialjudgeindicatedthattheappellantshouldbe
indictedfortheoffenceoflarcenyinadditiontothecountsofrape,buggeryand
robbery.However,thejuryfailedtoagreeonallcounts.
Duringthethirdtrial,thejudgeheardsubmissionswithrespecttothecountof
larcenyandruledagainstitsinclusionontheindictment.
GROUNDSOFAPPEAL
Theappellantputforwardthefollowinggrounds:
1.Thelearnedtrialjudgeerredinlawbyallowingthecircumstantialevidence
relativetothestolenitemsallegedtohavebeenfoundatthehomeoftheappellant
beforethejuryafterrulingthattheindictmentforthelarcenyofsamewouldbe
withdrawn.
2.Thelearnedtrialjudgeerredinlawbynotpermittingtheappellanttoputbefore
thejuryhispreviousacquittalsrelativetothecomplainanteventhoughtheydirectly
impactedthecredibilityofthecomplainant.
3.ThelearnedtrialjudgeerredinlawbypermittingtheStatetoadduceevidencein
rebuttaloncollateralissues.
4.Thelearnedtrialjudgeerredinlawinimposingasentencethatwastooseverein
thecircumstances.(EndofPage4)Atthehearingtheappellantwasgrantedleaveto
fileafurthergroundofappeal.Itwasformulatedasfollows:
5.TheappellantwasdeniedafairtrialduetothefailureoftheStatetoproducetwo
http://carilaw.andornot.com/results.aspx?AC=GET_RECORD&XC=/results.aspx&BU=http%3A%2F%2Fcarilaw.andornot.com%2FAdvSearch.aspx&TN=

2/9

4/9/2016

BENJAMINv.THESTATECariLAWSearchResults

exhibits,namelytheblackunderwearbelongingtothevirtualcomplainantandthe
vaginalandanalswabstakenfromthevirtualcomplainant.
GROUND1
ThisgroundrelatestothecircumstantialevidenceonwhichtheStatereliedto
supporttheidentificationevidenceinthecase.Theevidenceinquestionisthe
findingofaFPfaucetwiththelabel"C&RFurnishings"andaBrothersPTlabelling
machineatthehomeoftheappellanton6thJune2002.
Thespecificgroundsofcomplaintraisedbytheappellantare:
1.ThetrialjudgeleftthecircumstantialevidencewiththeJuryinspiteofhisruling
thatthecountoflarcenyshouldbewithdrawn.Accordingly,theStatewasnot
requiredtoprovethelarcenyoftheitemsbeyondreasonabledoubt.
2.Itwasnotbroughttotheattentionofthejurythattheappellanthadpreviously
beenacquittedofreceivingtheitemsfromC&RHomeFurnishings.Thisleftthejury
with"anincompleteandbiasedpicturethatunfairlybolsteredtheprosecution's
case."
3.TheitemswerenotproperlyidentifiedasthepropertyofC&RHomeFurnishings.
Furthertherewasnoevidencethat
theappellantwasseenremovingtheitems
thattheitemswerepresentatthetimetheperpetratorenteredthestoreand
theitemsweremissingimmediatelyfollowingthedepartureoftheperpetrator.
4.Inthecircumstancestheadmissionoftheevidenceamountedtounfairnesstothe
appellant.
THELAW
InthecaseofRv.Z[2000]2A.C.483thedefendantwaschargedwithrape.He
allegedinhisdefencethatthecomplainanthadconsentedtotheintercourse,or
alternatively,thathebelievedthatshehadconsented.Inordertorebutthedefence,
theprosecutionsoughttoleadevidencefromfourwomenwhohadmadeprevious
complaintsofrapeagainsttheappellant.Thesecomplaintshadbeentried.The
appellanthadbeenacquittedofthreeofthem.Atapreparatoryhearingthejudge
(EndofPage5)ruledthatallfourcomplaintscamewithintheprincipleofsimilarfact
evidence.However,heexcludedasinadmissiblethethreepreviouscomplaintson
whichtheappellanthadbeenacquittedonthebasisthataverdictofacquittalwas
bindingandconclusiveinallsubsequentproceedingsbetweentheparties.His
decisionwasaffirmedbytheCourtofAppealbutreversedbytheHouseofLords.
Inhisjudgment(atpage500)LordHuttoncitedwithapprovaladictumofChanell,J.
inthecaseofRv.Ollis[1900]2Q.B.758atp.782:
"thefactthatajuryhadacquittedwouldneitherdetractfromtheweightofthe
evidencenorinanywayaffectitsadmissibility,fortheprisonerwouldnotbetried
againfortheoffenceofwhichhehadbeenacquitted,butforadifferentoffence,in
respectofwhichtheevidencegivenintheformercase,orsomeofitwouldbe
relevant."
LordHuttonwentontogivehisownconclusion(atpage504)thatprovideda
defendantisnotplacedindoublejeopardy,evidencewhichisrelevanttoa
subsequentprosecutionisnotinadmissiblebecauseitshowsortendstoshowthat
thedefendantwasinfactguiltyofanoffenceofwhichhehadearlierbeenacquitted.
Theprincipleofadmissibility,wheretheevidenceisrelevanttoasubsequent
offence,isnotconfinedtocasesofsimilarfactevidence.ThecaseofRvs.Z(supra.)
wasappliedinRvs.Terry(2005)2Cr.App.R.7,inwhichtheappellantsoughttoput
forwardhisacquittalsasconclusiveproofthathewasnotinamotorvehicleatthe
timeofthecommissionofrelatedoffences.Theprosecutionsucceededinputting
intoevidencethetestimonyofanexpertwithrespecttotaperecordingswhichhad
beenruledinadmissibleatanearliertrialinwhichhehadbeenacquitted.These
recordingswereputintoestablishhispresenceinthecaratthematerialtime.He
wasconvictedonfivecounts.Onappealitwasheldthatalthoughanacquittalmeant
thattheappellantwasnotguiltyinlawoftheallegedoffencetowhichitrelated,it
wasnotconclusiveevidenceofinnocence,nordiditmeanthatallrelevantissues
hadbeenresolvedintheappellant'sfavour.Theinitialquestionswerewhetherthe
evidenceinquestionwasadmissibleasrelevanttoanissueinthecaseandwhether
itwasfairtoadmitit.
Intheinstantcasetheevidencewithrespecttotheitemsbeingfoundatthe
appellant'shomewasclearlyrelevanttotheissuesbeforethejury.Ifthejury
acceptedtheevidenceofInspectorBoxillthathefoundtheitemsatthehomeofthe
(EndofPage6)appellantandtheyweresurethattheitemsweretakenfromC&R
HomeFurnishingsatthetimethattheoffenceswerecommitted,itwasopentothem
http://carilaw.andornot.com/results.aspx?AC=GET_RECORD&XC=/results.aspx&BU=http%3A%2F%2Fcarilaw.andornot.com%2FAdvSearch.aspx&TN=

3/9

4/9/2016

BENJAMINv.THESTATECariLAWSearchResults

tofindthatthisevidencesupportedthevisualidentificationoftheappellantbythe
virtualcomplainant.
Asthecasescitedaboveestablish,thepreviousacquittalbyajuryfortheoffenceof
receivingdoesnotrendertheevidenceinadmissibleforthepurposeofprovingother
offencesallegedlycommittedatthesametime.Followingthesamereasoning,the
factthatthetrialjudgeinthiscaseruledthatthecountoflarcenyshouldnotbe
pursuedbytheState,didnotprecludetheStatefromrelyingonthesameevidence
forthepurposeofprovingotheroffences,oncetheevidencewasrelevant.Thefact
thattheStatewasnotrequiredtoprovetheingredientsoflarcenyisofnomoment
whatsoever,anddoesnotamounttounfairnesstotheappellant.
Inrelationtohissubmissionthatthepreviousacquittalforreceivingshouldhave
beenputbeforethejury,Mr.ScotlandreferredustothelearninginArchbold(2006)
atparas.4331and4332,whicharesetoutbelow:
Pam4331:"Intheabsenceofsomeexceptionalfeature,suchastheeffectofan
acquittalonthecredibilityofaconfessionortheevidenceofaprosecutionwitness,
evidenceoftheoutcomeofanearliertrialarisingoutofthesameeventsisirrelevant,
andthereforeinadmissiblesinceitamountstonomorethanevidenceoftheopinion
ofthejuryintheearliertrial:HuiChiMingv.R[1992]1A.C.34PC."
Para4332"TheprincipletobederivedfromCooke,ante,seemstobethatwhere
thereisaclearinferencefromaverdictthatthejuryhasrejectedawitness's
testimonyonthebasisthattheydonotbelievehim(asopposedtothinkingthathe
mighthavebeenmistaken),andthatwitness'scredibilityisdirectlyinissueina
subsequenttrial,evidenceofthefirsttrialisrelevant.Forfurtherrefinementofthis
principle,seeRv.Edwards[1991]1W.L.R.207.
Mr.ScotlandsubmitsthatthecredibilityofInspectorBoxhillwasinissueinthe
previoustrialinwhichtheappellanthadbeenacquittedofreceiving.Inhis
submission,thejurydidnotrejecthisevidenceonthegroundthathewasmistaken.
Hiscredibilityinthelatertrialthusbecame"anexceptionalfeature"withinthe(Endof
Page7)principlederivedfromHuiChiMingv.Rcitedinpara4331ofArchbold
(2006)ante.
FortheState,Ms.Seetahalsubmittedthattherewasnoexceptionalfeatureinthis
case.Inaddition,thetestwaswhethertherewasanacquittalbyvirtueofwhichthe
witness'evidencewasdemonstratedtohavebeendisbelieved:Rv.Edwards[1991]
1W.L.R.207,Rv.Y(1992)Crim.L.R.436.
TheprincipleenunciatedinRv.Edwards(ante)hasbeenappliedinthisjurisdiction
incasesinvolvingtheadmissibilityofconfessions,wherereasonedrulingsoftrial
judgesareavailable,andwheretheissuesinthevoirdiredirectlyinvolvethe
credibilityofpolicewitnesses.Insuchcasesitisoftenpossibletoconcludethatthe
evidenceofawitnesshadbeendemonstratedtohavebeendisbelieved.Inajury
trialinvolvinganumberofissuesoffactsandlaw,itisoftenimpossibletodiscernon
whatbasisaverdictofnotguiltyhasbeenreached.Inthiscase,thereisnobasison
whichonecanconcludethattheverdictofnotguiltyarosefromthejury'sdisbeliefof
theevidenceofInspectorBoxhill.
Havingregardtothefactsofthiscase,andthecasescitedabove,weareoftheview
thatevidenceofthepreviousacquittalforreceivingtheitemswasnotrelevanttothe
issuesthatthejuryhadtodecideinthiscaseandwouldhaveservedto
unnecessarilyconfusethejuryanddeflecttheirattentionfromtheissuestheyhadto
decide.
Mr.Scotland'sfurthersubmissionrelatedtotheidentificationoftheitems,asthe
propertyofC&RFurnishings.ItwastheevidenceofDebraRamatallythatshe
discoveredthefaucetmissingeitheronthedayoftheincidentorthedayafter.A
customercometocollectthefaucet.Itwassupposedtobeinthesmallroomwhere
ordereditemswerekept.Shenoticedaswellthatthelabellingmachinewasnotin
thedrawerwhereitwasusuallykept.
ThevirtualcomplainanttestifiedthatasaconsequenceofatelephonecallfromMs.
Ramatallyonthesamenightoftheincident,shebecameawarethatthe
computerizedlabellingmachineusuallykeptinthebottomdeskdrawerinthestore,
andagoldandchromeFPfaucetthatwasinaboxinthesameroomwheretheman
hadhadsexualintercoursewithher,weremissing.Theboxwaskeptontheleftside
oftheroomontheground.Thevirtualcomplainantreportedthelossoftheseitemsto
thepoliceon22ndMarch2002,thedayaftertheincident.(EndofPage8)
On5thJune2002,atabout4.00pm,asearchwascarriedoutattheappellant's
homeatThirdAvenueBarataria.InspectorBoxhilltestifiedthatduringthesearch,he
foundoneFPfaucetinaboxbearingthelogo"C&RTradingCompany"andone
BrothersPTlabellingmachineonthefloorinapassagewaybetweenthekitchen
andthebathroom.Hetookpossessionoftheseitems,placedhismarkingsonthem
inthepresenceoftheappellantandhandedthemovertoW.P.C.Horsfordlaterthat
day.ThevirtualcomplainantidentifiedtheitemstoW.P.C.Horsfordthesameday.
http://carilaw.andornot.com/results.aspx?AC=GET_RECORD&XC=/results.aspx&BU=http%3A%2F%2Fcarilaw.andornot.com%2FAdvSearch.aspx&TN=

4/9

4/9/2016

BENJAMINv.THESTATECariLAWSearchResults

Further,itwastheevidenceofMs.RamatallythatC&RFurnishingswerethesole
agentsanddistributorsoftheFPbrandatthetime.Itwasa"highend"product
importedfromVenezuelathattheyhadstartedtosellinthestoreafewmonths
beforetheincident.ItwasalsoMs.Ramatally'sevidencethatthelabelingmachine
hadbeenboughtabroad,andshehadnotseenanotheronelikeit.Withrespectto
thefindingoftheitemsthetrialjudgedirectedthejury:
"NowtheStateiseffectivelysayingthatwhatgivesthisbitofcircumstantialevidence,
astothefindingsoftheitems,force,isthatC&RHomeFurnishings,accordingto
theevidenceofDebraRamatally,werethesoleagentsforthesaleoftheseitemson
thedaysinquestionandthestate'scase,byinference,isthattheaccusedtook
theseitemsfromC&Ronthedayinquestion.Thereisnodirectevidenceofthat
fromCathySookoo,buttheStateissayingthatwhenyoulookatthetotalityofthe
evidence,itisaninferencewhichyoumaypossiblyarriveat.TheState'scase,from
theevidenceofCathySookooandonthetotalityoftheevidence,isthattheaccused
istheperpetratoroftherobbery,rapeandbuggeryonCathySookoo,attheC&R
Store.TheStateissayingonthetotalityoftheevidence,theevidenceofCathy
Sookootheconfrontation,thatistheircase.AndtheStateissayingthatontheir
case,ifyouacceptit,twoandahalfmonthslater,twoitemsfromC&RHome
Furnishings,onebearingastickerfromthestore,werefoundintheapartmentofthe
accused,andtheStatesaysthatthisisaverysignificantandtellingbitof(Endof
Page9)circumstantialevidencewhichtendstosupportthatCathySookooiscorrect
inhervisualidentificationevidence."
Thetrialjudgedirectedthejuryaswell:
"Ifyouaresurethattheitemswerefoundinthecircumstancesasdescribedby
InspectorBoxhill,inhisevidenceontheState'scase,andyouaresurethatheisa
truthful,credible,reliablewitness,thathisaccountistruthfulandthatheisunbiased
andhasnoaxetogrindagainsttheaccused,itisopentoyoutofindthatthis
evidence,ifyouacceptit,ofthefindingofthetwoitems,iscircumstantialevidence
independentofCathySookoo'sevidence,whichtendstosupportthecorrectnessof
hervisualidentificationevidence."
AsMs.Seetahalsubmits,thetrialjudgemadeitcleartothejury.
theymustbesureofthetruthfulnessoftheevidenceofInspectorBoxhillastothe
findingoftheitemsatthehomeoftheappellant.
thereisnodirectevidencethattheitemswereremovedfromthestoreonthedayof
theincident
theidentificationoftheitemswasbasedonastickerontheboxcontainingthe
faucet,andtheevidenceofMs.Ramatallythattheywerethesoleagentsand
distributorsoftheFPbrandatthetime.
onthetotalityoftheevidence,itwasopentothejurytodrawtheinferencethatthe
itemsweretakenfromthestorebytheappellantatthetimeoftheincident.
ItisclearformthesummationthatthetrialjudgewascarefultodirecttheJury's
attentiontoalloftherelevantevidenceinrelationtotheitems.Itwasthenforthejury
toconsideralloftheevidenceandtodrawreasonableconclusions.Inthisregard,
thedictumofLordMorrisofBorthyGestinMcGreevyv.DPP(1973)1W.L.R.276at
281H,isworthrepeating:
"Itisnottobeassumedthatmembersofajurywillabandontheirreasoningpowers
and,havingdecidedthattheyacceptastruesomeparticularpieceofevidence,will
notproceedfurthertoconsiderwhethertheeffectofthatpieceofevidenceistopoint
toguiltorisneutraloristo(EndofPage10)pointtoinnocence.Norisittobe
assumedthatintheprocessofweighingupagreatmanyseparatepiecesof
evidence,theywillforgetthefundamentaldirection,ifcarefullygiventothem,that
theymustnotconvictunlesstheyaresatisfiedthatguilthasbeenprovedandhas
beenprovedbeyondallreasonabledoubt."
Forthesereasons,weholdthatthereisnomeritinthisground.
GROUND2
Thelearnedtrialjudgeerredinlawbynotpermittingtheappellanttoputbeforethe
juryhispreviousacquittalsrelativetothecomplainanteventhoughtheydirectly
impactedthecredibilityofthecomplainant.
Firstofall,thegroundappearstobeerroneouslyframed.Therewasonlyone
acquittalbythejury,forreceiving.Thedirectedacquittalsatthefirsttrialwereall
reversedbytheCourtofAppealinTheStatev.KesterBenjaminCr.App.No11of
2006.
http://carilaw.andornot.com/results.aspx?AC=GET_RECORD&XC=/results.aspx&BU=http%3A%2F%2Fcarilaw.andornot.com%2FAdvSearch.aspx&TN=

5/9

4/9/2016

BENJAMINv.THESTATECariLAWSearchResults

SubmissionsmadeunderthisgroundclearlyoverlapwiththosemadeunderGround
1.Theemphasis,however,appearstobedifferent.Mr.Scotlandhassubmittedin
essencethatthetrialjudgeshouldhaveallowedevidenceofthepreviousacquittal
asamatteroflaw,since,inMr.Scotland'ssubmissionitimpactedonthecredibilityof
InspectorBoxhill,whowasakeywitnessfortheStatewithrespecttothefindingof
theitemsattheappellant'shome.
Werejectthissubmissionforthereasonsgivenabove.Theevidenceoftheprevious
acquittalwasirrelevant,sinceitamountedtonomorethantheevidenceofthe
opinionofajuryatanearliertrial:HuiChiMingv.R(ante).Furtherthereisno
reasonablebasistoconcludethattheacquittalbythejuryintheearliertrialwas
basedondisbeliefofthetestimonyofInspectorBoxhill.
Moreover,thetrialjudgemadeitclearthatthejurymustbesurethatInspector
Boxhillwasa"truthful,credible,reliablewitness,"andthathisaccountwastruthful
andthathewasunbiasedandhadnoaxetogrindagainsttheappellant.
Forthesereasonswefindthatthetrialjudgedidnoterrbynotpermittingthe
appellanttoputhispreviousacquittalbeforethejury.AccordinglyGround2hasno
merit.(EndofPage11)
GROUND3
ThelearnedtrialjudgeerredinlawbypermittingtheStatetoadduceevidencein
rebuttaloncollateralissues.
ItwastheevidenceofCpl.EmrolBrucethaton5thJune2002around4.00pm,he
wenttoFrederickStreet,PortofSpaininthevicinityofSt.Mary'sCollege
accompaniedbytwootherpoliceofficers,alldressedinplainclothes.Hesawthe
appellant,identifiedhimselftohim,informedhimofthereportthathewas
investigating,andthathewasasuspect.Hecautionedtheappellant,andtoldhimof
hisrightsandprivileges,andtheappellantreplied"Officer,allyuhdon'tputmeonan
identificationparadejustchargeme."HewasthentakentotheBelmontPolice
Station.
Theappellantgaveatotallydifferentaccountofthecircumstancesofhisarrest.
Accordingtohisaccount,hewasdrivinghisBMW7seriesmotorcaronWrightson
Road,inthevicinityoftheLicensingOfficeon5''June2002around7.00pm.His
witnessRodellMcFeewasinthecar.Hewaspulledoverbysomepoliceofficers,
oneofwhomwasInspectorBoxhill,whomheknewbefore.Oneoftheofficersasked
theappellantifthecarbelongedtohim.Theappellantrepliedsarcastically"No,itis
notmycar,Ithiefit."Theofficersthenstartedtoshout,pointedtheirgunsathimand
orderedhimtogetoutof"thef...ingcar."Theappellantcameoutofthecarand
askedtheofficersifthatwashowtheyweretrainedtospeaktopeople.Theofficer
searchedtheappellantandorderedhimandMcFee,tolieontheground.The
appellantrefusedandhewasforciblypushedtotheground.Theappellantwas
handcuffedandtakentoSt.VincentStreet,C.I.D.Heshoutedhiswife'stelephone
numbertoMcFee,whosubsequentlytelephonedtheappellant'swife.
TheStateappliedtothetrialjudgetocallevidenceinrebuttalwithrespecttothe
ownershipandpossessionoftheBMWmotorvehicleatthetimeofarrest.The
applicationwasgrantedbythetrialjudge.
TheStatecalledoneGregoryKurbanaliandemployeesoftheLicensingOffice.Mr.
Kurbanalitestifiedthatheboughtthecarin1997.InJuly2003thecarwasdamaged
inanaccident.InOctober2003hesoldthecartotheappellant.Heproduced
receiptsdated21stOctober2003andisNovember2003toestablishthetimeofthe
sale.ThecarwastransferredtotheappellantinOctober2003.Theappellantwas
permittedtoreopenhiscasetocallPrisonsOfficerAdolphusJeremie(EndofPage
12)whotestifiedthattheappellantwasinprisonfrom27thOctober,2003totheend
ofDecember2003.
Mr.Scotlandcontends,interalia,thattheissueoftheownershipandpossessionof
theBMWcarwasclearlyacollateralissuewhichwasnotrelevanttoanymatterthat
thejuryhadtodecide,butmerelyimpactedonthecredibilityoftheappellant.
Inhisoralrulingatthetrialdeliveredon26thNovember,2008thetrialjudge
reviewedtheleadingauthoritiesonrebuttalevidence,andexercisedhisdiscretion
infavouroftheState.
TheStatesoughttohavetheevidenceadmittedundertheeximprovisoprinciple,
whichisencapsulatedinthedictionofTindal,C.J.inRv.Frost(1839)9C&P129at
p.159quotedinArchbold(2006)para4340:"ifanymatterariseseximproviso,
whichtheCrowncouldnotforesee,supposingittobeentirelynewmatter,which
theymaybeabletoansweronlybycontradictingevidence,theymaygiveevidence
inReply."
RvBlick50Cr.App.R.280providesanillustrationoftheprinciple.Duringhistrial
forrobbery,Blickassertedthathewaspresentattheplacewherehewasarrested
duetoavisittoapubliclavatory.Ajurorwhoknewtheareapassedanotetothe
judgeinforminghimthatthelavatorywasclosedatthematerialtime.The
prosecutionweregrantedleavetocallevidenceinrebuttaltothateffect.Itwasheld
http://carilaw.andornot.com/results.aspx?AC=GET_RECORD&XC=/results.aspx&BU=http%3A%2F%2Fcarilaw.andornot.com%2FAdvSearch.aspx&TN=

6/9

4/9/2016

BENJAMINv.THESTATECariLAWSearchResults

thattheevidencewasproperlyadmitted.
InRv.Milliken53Cr.App.R.330,inthecourseofhisevidencethedefendant
allegedthathewasfalselychargedbyapoliceofficeraspartofaconspiracywith
twootherpoliceofficers.Theprosecutionwasgrantedleavetocallrebuttalevidence
tocontradicttheallegationsofconspiracymadeagainstthepoliceofficers.The
exerciseofthediscretiontopermitrebuttalevidencewasupheldbytheCourtof
Appeal.Atp.333ofthereportWinn,L.J.stated:
"Wheretheevidencesoughttobeintroducedinrebuttalisitselfevidenceprobative
oftheguiltofthedefendantandwhereitisreasonablyforeseeablebythe
prosecutionthatsomegapintheproofofguiltneedstobefilledbyevidencecalled
bytheprosecution,then,generallyspeaking,theCourtislikelytoruleagainstthe
closingofanysuchgapbyrebuttalevidencebutitistobenotedthattheevidence
(EndofPage14)herewasnotevidenceinanysenseprobativeoftheguiltofthe
defendant,sinceitreallyconsistedofnomorethandenialsoftheaccusationsof
conspiracyandconcoctionofthechargemadebythedefendantinhisown
evidence.
Ifithastobeanalyzed,theevidencecalledbywayofrebuttalwasevidenceto
disprovethetruthofthedefence,whichitselfconsistedofanaffirmativeattackupon
thecredibilityandhonestyofthepoliceofficers."
InNoelWilliamsv.TheQueenPrivyCouncilAppealNo.11of1996,thedefence
raisedseriousallegationsofmisconductagainstpoliceofficers.Rebuttalevidence
waspermittedtomeetallegationsofapoliceconspiracyagainstthedefendant.It
washeldthatthediscretionwasproperlyexercised.
Havingreviewedtheauthoritiesthetrialjudgehadthistosayatp.27ofthe
transcriptofthetrialdated26thNovember2008.
"Theproposedevidence,inmyview,goestorebutthedefenceofapoliceactivated
conspiracygeneratedbyInspectorBoxhilltoavoidbeingchargedconsequentupon
thethreatsoftheaccusedtohim.
"IfthestatehasevidentialmaterialwhichsuggestsorgoestoestablishthatvehicleX
wasnotownedorpossessedbytheaccusedonthematerialdate,thenthisis
relevanttoarebuttalofthatparticularlineofdefence."
ThetrialjudgewentontograntleavetotheStatetocallrebuttalevidenceonthe
issue.Wefindnofaultwiththeexerciseofhisdiscretioninthecircumstancesofthis
case.
Accordinglythisgroundfailsaswell.
ItisconvenienttodealwithGround5beforeGround4,forreasonsthatwillbecome
clearinduecourse.
GROUND5
TheappellantwasdeniedafairtrialduetothefailureoftheStatetoproducetwo(2)
exhibits,namely,theblackunderwearbelongingtothevirtualcomplainantandthe
vaginalandanalswabstakenfromthevirtualcomplainant.(EndofPage14)
Aftertheincidenton21stMarch2002,thevirtualcomplainantwastakenfora
medicalexaminationatwhichvaginalandanalswabsweretaken.Theswabs,
togetherwiththeunderwearshewaswearingatthetime,weretakenbyW.P.C.
HorsfordtotheForensicScienceCentrefortesting,on22ndMarch,2002.On14th
November,2002W.P.C.HorsfordreturnedtotheForensicScienceCentre.Shewas
handedtheunderwearandaCertificateofAnalysiswhichconfirmedthathuman
spermatozoawerefoundontheswabsandontheunderwear.W.P.C.Horsford
lodgedtheunderwearforsafekeepingwiththepropertykeeperatCentralPolice
Stationonthesameday.
On9thApril2008whilegivingevidenceatanearliertrial,W.P.C.Horsfordindicated
thatwhenshesubsequentlyreturnedtoCentralPoliceStationtocollecttheexhibit,it
couldnotbefound.
On9thApril2008forthefirsttimetheappellantstatedhiswillingnesstoprovide
DNA,ifsamplesexist.Wehavenotbeenreferredtoanyevidencewithrespecttothe
availabilityofthevaginalandanalswabs.
OnthesefactsMr.Scotlandcontendsthattheappellantisseriouslyprejudicedsince
hehasbeendeniedtheopportunitytohaveDNAtestingdonewithaviewto
"unequivocally"confirminghisinnocence.
InsupportofhissubmissionMr.ScotlandreferredtothecaseofRv.Beckford(1995)
Crim.L.R.712,inwhichtheexhibit(acardrivenbytheappellantinafatalaccident)
hadbeendestroyedbeforeitspotentialuseinthepreparationofthedefence.
TheCourtconsideredtheissueastowhetherinthecircumstancesitwaspossible
fortheappellanttoreceiveafairtrial.TheCourtnotedthenecessityofensuringthe
fairnessoftheprocesswhileensuringthatthosewhoareproperlybeforetheCourt
aretriedaccordingtolaw.
http://carilaw.andornot.com/results.aspx?AC=GET_RECORD&XC=/results.aspx&BU=http%3A%2F%2Fcarilaw.andornot.com%2FAdvSearch.aspx&TN=

7/9

4/9/2016

BENJAMINv.THESTATECariLAWSearchResults

OnthefactsbeforeittheCourtconcludedthattheappellantwasnotdeniedafair
trialbecauseofthedestructionoftheexhibitsbeforehewascharged.
ItistobenotedthatinBeckford,attheveryoutsetthedefencehadrequestedthat
thecarbetestedforadefectinitssteeringmechanism,whichwasrelevanttothe
defence.
IntheinstantcasetheappellantindicatedhiswillingnesstoprovideDNAforthe
purposeofcomparison,on9thApril2008,morethansixyearsaftertheincidentand
afterW.P.C.Horsfordhadindicatedinhertestimonythattheunderwearcould(Endof
Page15)notbefound.HadtheappellantmadearequestforDNAtestingtobe
carriedoutatthetimethathewaschargedoratanearlystageoftheprosecution,
hisassertionofadenialofafairtrialmighthavecarriedmoreweight.However,
havingregardtothetimingofhisindicationthathewaswillingtoprovideDNA
samples,theappellant'sassertionsmacksofopportunism.
Theissuethathasbeenraisediswhetherornotinthecircumstancestheappellant
wasdeniedafairtrial.Onanexaminationoftheevidencetheanswermustbeinthe
negative.
ThetrialjudgemadeitcleartothejurythattheState'scaserestedonthreelimbs:
theevidenceofidentificationofthevirtualcomplainant
thefindingoftheitemsbyInspectorBoxhill,and
theallegedoralstatementoftheappellant.
Attheendofthedaythejudgemadeitquiteclearthatthecaserestedprincipallyon
theevidenceofthevirtualcomplainant.Inthiscase,theidentificationevidencewas
quitestrongandcouldhavesupportedaconviction,independentlyoftheothertwo
limbs.Clearly,bytheirverdictthejuryacceptedandweresureoftheevidenceofthe
virtualcomplainant.
Toconsideratthisstage,whetherDNAtestingwouldorwouldnothaveexculpated
theappellantistoengageinspeculation.
Accordingly,thisgroundfailsaswell.
GROUND4
Thelearnedjudgeerredinlawinimposingasentencethatwastoosevereinthe
circumstances.
Inthiscasethetrialjudgeimposedasentenceof30yearshardlabourforrape,23
yearsforbuggeryand13yearsforrobberywithaggravation.
Inimposingsentencethetrialjudgeconsideredthefollowingaggravatingfactors:
theuseofanoffensiveweapon,namelyasixinchknife
therapewasaccompaniedbybuggery
threatstokillthevirtualcomplainantbecauseshehadseenhisface
anelementofplanningandpremeditation(EndofPage16)
theappellanthadfourpreviousconvictionsthreeforindecentexposureandone
forbeingfoundonpremisesforanunlawfulpurpose
theprevalenceandseriousnessoftheoffences,and
thelackofremorseshownbytheappellant.
Inhissubmissions,Mr.Scotlandhasreferredustoanumberoflocalcasesonthe
issueofsentencingincasesofrape.
OnthehigherendofthescaleisthecaseofDominiqueLondonvTheState(unrep.)
Cr.App.No.10of2003.Inthiscasethevictimwasa15yearoldgirl,whowasraped
bytheappellantoveranextendedperiodonthreeseparateoccasions.Shewas
chokedtothepointofunconsciousnessontwooccasions.Shewashospitalizedfor
sixdaysaftertheincident.Theoffencewascommittedwhiletheappellantwasout
onbail.Asentenceof30yearshardlabourwasimposed.
InSteveWilliamsv.TheState(unrep.)Cr.App.No.23of2001theappellantwas
convictedofrape,buggeryseriousindecencyandrobberywithaggravation.The
offencestookplaceoveraperiodof1hours.Hewassentencedtolife
imprisonmentfortherape,nottobereleasedbefore20years.
InRichardElliotv.TheState,(unrep.)Cr.App.No.56of1999theappellantwas
convictedofrape,buggery,seriousindecencyandindecentassaultona19years
oldgirl.Aknifewasusedincarryingouttheoffence,althoughnoactualinjurywas
inflictedwithit.Onthecountofrapethetrialjudgeimposedalifesentencenottobe
releasedbefore30years.TheCourtofappealreducedthesentenceto15yearsand
10strokes.
IndeliveringjudgmentdelaBastideCJstatedasfollows:
Itishowever,necessary,tokeepasenseofproportionwhensentencingin
circumstancesofthiskind...Also,itisnecessarytobearinmind,thoughitmaybe
difficulttoimagine,thereareothercasesofthesamekindinwhichtheaggravating
http://carilaw.andornot.com/results.aspx?AC=GET_RECORD&XC=/results.aspx&BU=http%3A%2F%2Fcarilaw.andornot.com%2FAdvSearch.aspx&TN=

8/9

4/9/2016

BENJAMINv.THESTATECariLAWSearchResults

circumstancesareevenworsethaninthiscase.OnesuchfeatureImightmention
wouldbetheparticipationofmorethanonepersonintheoutrage,inwhatisknown
sometimesas`gangrape.'Also,itmaybethattheactsofsexualdegradationare
accompaniedbyphysicalviolenceofagreaterorlesserdegree."(EndofPage17)
WebearinmindtheprincipleoutlinedbytheformerChiefJusticeinRichardElliot
(supra).Whilewenotethecarefulapproachofthetrialjudgeinoutliningthe
aggravatingfactorsinthiscase,weconsiderthatthiscasedoesnotfallintothe
categoryofcasesatthehighestendofthescale.
Havingregardtothecircumstancesofthiscase,andthesentencesimposedinthe
casescitedtous,weconsiderthefollowingsentenceswilldojusticeinthiscase:
Onthecountofrape20yearswithhardlabour.
OntheCourtofbuggery20yearswithhardlabour.
Onthecountofrobberywithaggravation12yearswithhardlabour.
Accordingly,theconvictionsareaffirmedandthesentencesarevariedaccordingly.
P.Weekes
JusticeofAppeal.
A.SooHon
JusticeofAppeal.
R.Narine
JusticeofAppeal.
Newsearch|ReviseSearch|Backtosearchresults|First|Previous|Next|Last

http://carilaw.andornot.com/results.aspx?AC=GET_RECORD&XC=/results.aspx&BU=http%3A%2F%2Fcarilaw.andornot.com%2FAdvSearch.aspx&TN=

9/9