Steeve Santana v R (CR-AP 3 of 2021) [2023] TCACA 2 (3 February 2023)

Flynote

Criminal law

Case summary

Appeal dismissed. The crucial issue was whether the remarks of prosecuting counsel were so emotive and exciting to result in the appellant not having a fair trial [39].  In examining comments made by prosecuting counsel, what the cases of Benedetto and Labrador and Ramdanhie established is that the comments must be of such a nature that they overstepped the permissible bounds, causing unfairness in the trial process. On the other hand, Gonez establishes that even where comments are overly emotive where the evidence against an appellant is very strong, the court may nevertheless dismiss an appeal [40]. In the instant case and upon examination of the comments complained of, the Court was of the view that prosecuting counsel’s closing speech did not undermine the fairness of the trial nor were the comments emotive or exciting [41]. Boucher v Regina (1955) SCC 16; R v Gonez [1999] 1 All ER (D) 674; Randall v R [2002] UKPC 19; Benedetto v R; Labrador v R [2003] UKPC 27; Ramdhanie & Ors v State [2005] UKPC 47; R v Johal (Gavneet) [2018] EWCA Crim 1256, considered.

---