Taitt v The State (Trinidad & Tobago)

[2012] UKPC 38
Privy Council Appeal No 0002 of 2012

JUDGMENT

Taitt (Appellant) v The State (Respondent)

From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad & Tobago

before

Lord Hope
Lord Wilson
Lord Carnwath

JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY

LORD HOPE

ON

8 November 2012

Heard on 15 October 2012

Appellant
James Guthrie QC
Clara Johnson
(Instructed by Simons Muirhead & Burton)

Respondent
Tom Poole
(Instructed by Charles Russell LLP)

LORD HOPE

On 9 May 2008 the appellant Marlon Taitt was found guilty, together with his co-accused Ijah Braithwaite, of the murder by shooting of Anthony McCarthy on 16 May 2006. They were both sentenced to death, as the crime of which they had been convicted attracted the mandatory death sentence.

The case for the prosecution had been based substantially on the identification evidence of Sheneka McCarthy, who was the deceased's niece. Prior to the summing up the appellant's counsel asked the judge to give the appellant, who had a prior conviction for larceny in 1999, a good character direction. The judge declined to do so. During the trial counsel for the appellant's co-accused Braithwaite expressed concern as to whether his client's mental state was such as to be able to give him proper instructions. The judge adjourned the trial for an evaluation of Braithwaite's state of mind at the time of the offence and his fitness to instruct counsel and plead at his trial. It does not appear that the grounds for concern were made out, as his trial was permitted to proceed after the adjournment. The appellant's counsel, with whom the matter had been discussed by counsel for Braithwaite, did not make a similar application on the appellant's behalf.

Both the appellant and his co-accused appealed against their convictions on a number of grounds. The co-accused's appeal was allowed, on the ground that the trial judge had given inadequate directions on the issue of identification as it affected him. A retrial was ordered in his case. The circumstances of the identification in the appellant's case were not the same, and he did not raise the question of the inadequacy of the trial judge's directions on that issue in his appeal. His appeal was presented on the basis that there had been a number of irregularities during the trial which, when taken collectively, had the effect of rendering the verdict unsafe. On 11 December 2009 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against his conviction.

In April 2010, following the dismissal of his appeal, Simons Muirhead & Burton ("SMB"), who had been instructed by Herbert Smith LLP, agreed to act for the appellant pro bono with a view to a possible appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. On 21 April 2010 they notified the State's Privy Council agents, Charles Russell LLP, of their interest and asked for a set of the relevant papers. They are to be commended for having taken this step so promptly. As was noted in Hamilton v The Queen [2012] UKPC…

JUDGMENT