Palmer v. The Queen (Jamaica)

Privy Council Appeal No. 14 of 1996

Trevor Palmer Appellant

v.

The Queen Respondent

FROM

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF JAMAICA

---------------

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL

COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL,

Delivered the 16th June 1997

------------------

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Browne-Wilkinson

Lord Slynn of Hadley

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead

Lord Steyn

Lord Hutton

  ·[Delivered by Lord Steyn]

-------------------------

1. In the afternoon of 26th March 1990, and in the parish of Manchester, Godfrey Lindsay was murdered during the course of a robbery.  On 5th February 1991 after a trial in the Manchester Circuit Court before a judge and a jury the appellant was convicted of the murder and sentenced to death.  On 30th May 1994 the Court of Appeal of Jamaica dismissed the appellant's application for leave to appeal.  The present appeal is against the decision of the Court of Appeal.

The setting of the murder.

The deceased was engaged in the business of buying yams from farmers for resale.  He used a truck to pick up the yams.  He had to pay the farmers for the yams.  He either had significant sums of money with him during the course of picking up yams or would have been believed to be carrying money.  In an area plagued with armed robberies he was therefore a target.

 On the afternoon of 26th March 1990 the deceased, accompanied by Trevor Wallace, went to pick up yams at Hope Property, Blue Mountain.  Kenneth Pommells, a yam farmer, and his son Cleveland Pommells met them.  The truck stopped in an orange grove near a yam field.  The loading started.  Cleveland Pommells was in the back of the truck receiving and packing the yams.  Trevor Wallace passed the yams to Cleveland Pommells.  The deceased was standing a few yards away.  Three men passed close by the truck and went into the orange grove.  Suddenly, two or three men rushed back.  They demanded money.  One of the robbers shot the deceased.  The robbers then fled from the scene.

The prosecution case.

There was a strong prosecution case.  Four witnesses gave evidence which connected the appellant with the robbery and the shooting of the deceased.  The first witness was Cleveland Pommells.  He described how three men walked past the truck and how all three came back.  They demanded money.  He said two of the men had guns.  One man pointed his gun at him.  The appellant was the other robber with a gun.  He heard a shot and the robbers ran off.  He said that, although he did not know the appellant, he recognised him by "liver spots all over his face".  He had identified the appellant at an identification parade held in August 1990.

Wallace then described the robbery.  He said that three men passed the truck.  Then all three came back.  They demanded money.  He said that the appellant had a gun.  The appellant shot the deceased.  He said he recognised the appellant by a liver spot on his face.