Clarence Williams v R (CR-AP 1 of 2022) [2023] TCACA 5 (8 February 2023)

Flynote

Criminal law

Case summary

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, the sentence discharged and a retrial ordered. Christopher Thomas No 1 and No 2 and Arthurton establish that the improper cross examination of a defence witness may lead to the quashing of a conviction. In many cases jury directions will sufficiently meet fears of prejudice through disclosure of irrelevant or insufficiently probative evidence. Whether there is unfairness turns on the context, including in particular the issues at trial. In certain cases, such as where a jury is being asked to rely on the good character of a defendant it is doubtful whether any directions can overcome the unfairness of an improperly admitted statement which impugns his character and alleges previous offending or propensity to commit the offence [21]. The Court was satisfied that the questions were improper and sufficient to warrant the discharge of the jury, especially as in this trial a lot turned on the appellant’s credibility. The directions and summation of the learned trial judge did not cure the prejudice suffered by the appellant and in all the circumstances the appellant did not have a fair trial. Having found that the questions were improper and their impact prejudicial, the issue of whether the information leading to those questions should have been disclosed or not bore no weight on the determination of this appeal [22]. Counsel for the appellant strongly summited that having regard to his age, 77, his resignation from all duties within the church, and his possible ill health, that there should be no retrial.  In Reid v R, the Privy Council set out the principles to be applied in deciding whether to order a new trial [24] to [25]. Having given ample consideration to the issue of a retrial and taking into consideration the submission of counsel for the appellant, the Court was nevertheless of the opinion that the interest of justice is best served by the order for a retrial. It was borne in mind that at trial, counsel for the appellant admitted that the jury should be discharged and a new trial ordered. The appellant’s ability to present his defence ought not to be impacted by the passage of time [27]. Reid v R - (1978) 27 WIR 254; Went v R - (2019) 94 WIR 16; Arthurton (Errol) v R - (2004) 64 WIR 12; Christopher Thomas v R (No 1) [2011] JMCA Crim 49; Christopher Thomas v R (No 2) [2018] JMCA Crim 31, considered. 

---