Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
  • About Us
    • Brief History of the Court
    • Court Overview
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Past Chief Justices
      • Sir Hugh Rawlins
      • Sir Brian George Keith Alleyne
      • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Adrian Saunders
      • Hon. Sir Charles Michael Dennis Byron
      • Rt. Hon. Sir Vincent Floissac
      • Honourable Sir Lascelles Lister Robotham
      • More..
        • Hon. Neville Algernon Berridge
        • Sir Neville Peterkin
        • Sir Maurice Herbert Davis
        • Justice P. Cecil Lewis
        • Sir Allen Montgomery Lewis
    • Judicial Officers
      • Justices of Appeal
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Davidson Kelvin Baptiste
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Mario Michel
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Gertel Thom
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Paul Anthony Webster [Ag.]
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Gerard Farara, KC
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Trevor Ward, KC
      • High Court Judges
      • Masters
    • Court of Appeal Registry
    • Court Connected Mediation
      • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Mediation Publications
    • More…
      • Career Opportunities
      • Legal Internship
      • Transcript Requests
      • Directory
  • Judgments
    • Privy Council
    • Caribbean Court of Justice
    • Court Of Appeal Judgments
    • High Court Judgments
    • Digests of Decisions
    • Country
      • Anguilla
      • Antigua & Barbuda
      • Grenada
      • Montserrat
      • Saint Kitts and Nevis
      • Saint lucia
      • Saint Vincent & The Grenadines
      • Territory of the Virgin Islands
    • Year
      • 1972 – 1990
        • 1972
        • 1973
        • 1975
        • 1987
        • 1989
        • 1990
      • 1991 – 2000
        • 1991
        • 1992
        • 1993
        • 1994
        • 1995
        • 1996
        • 1997
        • 1998
        • 1999
        • 2000
      • 2001 – 2010
        • 2001
        • 2002
        • 2003
        • 2004
        • 2005
        • 2006
        • 2007
        • 2008
        • 2009
        • 2010
      • 2011 – 2019
        • 2011
        • 2012
        • 2013
        • 2014
        • 2015
        • 2016
        • 2017
        • 2018
        • 2019
    • Judgment Focus
  • Sittings & Notices
    • Schedule of Sittings
    • Court of Appeal Sittings
    • Chamber Hearing (Appeals)
    • Case Management (Appeals)
    • High Court Sittings
    • Status Hearings
    • Special Sittings
    • Notices
  • Court Procedures & Rules
    • ECSC Court of Appeal Rules
    • ECSC (Sittings of the Court) Rules, 2014
    • Civil Procedure Rules [WEB]
    • ECSC Civil Procedure Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to Nov 2015]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2014
      • ECSC Civil Procedure (Amendment) (No.2) Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to May 2014]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2011
    • ECSC Criminal Procedure Rules
      • Criminal Procedure Rules SI No. 22 of 2015
    • ECSC Sentencing Guidelines
    • Non Contentious Probate Rules and Administration of Estates
    • Family Proceedings Rules
    • More..
      • Election Petition Rules
      • Legal Profession Disciplinary Procedure Rules (St. Lucia)
      • Code Of Judicial Conduct
      • Court Forms
        • Introduction of E-Filing
        • BVI Commercial Division E-Filing
        • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Court Proceedings Fees
      • SILK Application Procedure
      • Practice Directions
      • Practice Notes
      • Video Conferencing Protocols
  • News & Publications
    • ECSC Media Gallery
    • Annual Reports
    • Appointments
    • Press Releases
    • Papers & Presentation
      • Opening of the Law Year Addresses
    • Tributes
  • E-Litigation
    • E-Litigation Portal
    • E-Litigation Instructional Videos
    • ECSC E-Litigation Portal User Information
    • Electronic Litigation Filing and Service Procedure Rules
    • Notices of Commencement
    • E-Litigation Publications
  • J.E.I
    • JEI History
    • Structure of JEI
    • JEI Chairman
    • Mandate, Objectives, Standards
    • Programmes Archive
      • Conferences
      • Programmes & Projects
      • Symposiums
      • Training
      • Workshops
    • Upcoming Activities
more
    • About Us
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Mediation
    • Careers
  • Contact
  • Saved for Later
 Home  E-Litigation Portal
  •  Court Procedures And Rules
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Court Forms
    • Election Petition Rules
    • Practice Directions
  •  Judgments
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
    •  Digest of Decisions
  •  Sittings
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
  • Sign In
    
    Minimize Search Window
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Category {{SelectedFilters.length}}x Categories 
    •       {{item.title}} {{selectedCountries.length}}x Countries Country 
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Year {{selectedOptions.length}}x Options 
    
    Sorry can't find what you're looking for try adjusting your search terms
    Appeal
    {{doc._source.post_title}}
    Page {{indexVM.page}} of {{indexVM.pageCount}}
    pdf
    Home » Judgments » High Court Judgments » Errol Smith v the Queen

    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
    ST. VINCENT
    High Court Cl1.mina.l Appeal No. 6 of’ 1972 ERROL Appellant Between:
    SMITH
    and THE QUEEN R~sponden t
    Bef’ore: The HQnourable the Chief’ Justice The Honourable Mr. Justice Cecil Lewis The Honourable Mr. Justice st. Bernard G. Isaacs f’or appellant A.T. Warner Q.C. (Attorney General), Miss M. Joseph with him, f’or respondent
    1972, May 17
    JUDGMENT The judgment of’ the eourt was delivered by I.EWIS, C.J •
    The Court is indebted to Mr. Isaacs f’ or the arguments
    which he has put f’orward in this case today, and, although
    some of’ his submissions have not met with f’avourable reception
    the Court nevertheless bears in mind that leave was granted to
    the appellant and that learned counsel quite readily accepted
    the Courtts assignment to argue the case.
    The appellant was convicted on the 18th Fe~ruary, 1972 of’
    the of’f’ence of’ rape in respect of’ a young woman named Marie
    Mc Kie. It is not necessary to go into all the details of’ what
    was a rather unsavoury incident. ‘1.he young woman said that
    she was gping home carrying a bag with some bread in it and she
    f’el~ a man, who turned out to be the appellant, hold her by
    the throat. He was wearing only a bathsuit and he pulled her
    into the bush, r’ather high lemon grass bush, threw her to the
    ground and had sexual intercourse with her twice against her
    consent. She was at the time having her period and the two
    panties which he, according to her evidence f’orcibly removed f’rom
    /her •••••••••••••
    t 2 ­
    her body and the pad which she was wearing were all satu~8.j,§<t “
    wi th blood which the laboratory technician said might be
    menstrual blood.
    When she came out of the bush she was seen by a witness,
    J~queline James, to be crying, her dress was rumpled, there
    were bits of’ grass in her hair and Jacqueline James inquired
    of her why she was crying. She then made a report to , ‘(“
    Jacqueline James about the incident Which had occu7ed between
    herself and the appellant.
    Subsequently, she made a report to a woman police who accompanied her back to the scene as well as another corporal of police, and one of’ the panties and the pad \vas f’ound there. Certain aspects of her conduct could be considered as
    somewhat unusual for a person who had been assaulted in the
    way that she says she was. For example, it was elicited
    from her in cross-examination that at one stage after she had
    dressed, there were people passing and that at the instance
    of the appellant she remained in the bush. It was also
    elicited f’rom her that in the course of’ the scuffle or struggle
    whatever took place – she lost her watch and that the appellant
    looked f’or it and f’ ound it and gave it to her. These aspects
    of her conduct – her delay in leaving the scene after the
    incident – were lef’t to the jury on theq uestion of’ consent,
    and the judge quite properly pointed out that one explanation
    might be that she was still under f’ear of’ the appellant, because
    she said that on more than one occasion when she atten.pted to
    scream out he threatened, to use her words, “to rar.l a stick
    down my throat”.
    At an identif’ication parade which took place on the f’ollowing
    day she identif’ied the appellant as the person who had raped
    her.
    Tne police went in search of’ the aIPellant after they received the report from this girl, and when he was told of’ /the ••••••••• 00 •••

    • 3

    the complaint his first reply was that he knew n~thing at all
    “about this incident. Subsequently, after he had been identified
    by the prosecutrix and his bathing trunk had been found
    at his house blood-stained, a nd after some prolonged questionHe
    said that he knew the ing by the police, he gave a story. girl before and that on the day in question he saw her pass near to the Post Office; he called out to her to wait and she prompt­ ly began to run aWay from him, but he followed her J met her
    talking to two girls by the Preparatory School and on her seeing
    him she ran off again, but she fell in the grass and he got on
    top of· her and asked her to l:Iave sex with him. Sne refused,
    but he led her into the bush and there he began to disrobe her.
    He says that at that stage she herself took off her panties.
    The rest of his evidence amounts to a suggestion that she
    acquiesced, having at first refused she eventually ac~uiesced,
    in having sex~a1 intercourse with him. At the trial he gave
    evidence to the same effect.
    The learned Judge gave the jury a proper warning about the
    need for corroboration and he pointed out to them some mattera
    which might be considered as corroboration. It is in respect
    of this direction that the first ground of appeal was taken.
    The Judge told the jury that the f act that when the girl came
    out of the bush she WaS seen to be crying was capable of amount­
    1ng to corroboration. Learned counsel for the appellant has
    submitted that this was wrong, that the crying which took place
    was part and parcel of the complaint which was made to Jacqueline.
    The Court is unable to accept 1:bat submission because she was seen
    to be crying before she made t hat complaint} and, indeed, the
    evidence is thatit is the fac t t ha t she was crying that caused
    Jacqueline to ask her why she was crying. Then, the Judge said
    that the evidence that the accused himself gave as to her running
    after he had called her is evidence which is ca2aole 01 being
    corroboration. Here again.. le’srned counsel first s.1bmi tted that
    /that 0 ••••••••••••
    .. – 4
    that evidence if taken with the rest of the appellant t s evidence
    that she took off her panties and so on could not be
    capable of amounting to corroboration; but he quite frankly
    conceded that it was a matter for the jury to say how much of
    hiS evidence they accepted, and if’ they accepted that he did
    run af’ter her and that, according to the statement that he gave,
    she fell down and he got on top of her, and I’ ejected the rest of’
    his evidence about her acquiescing, then this would b e very strong
    corroboration When one adds to that fact the fact that indeed.
    her watch came off of her wrist, although the cold print does
    not indicate that there was any violent struggle between these
    parties, it is obvious that there must have been a struggle
    during the course of which this watch came off’ of the girl t a
    wrist. The judge also told the jury that the evidence that
    there was grass in the girl’s hair migut be corroboration.
    Well, here the Court thinks the Judge was in error because
    obviously even if’ she had consen ted she might ver~r well have
    grass in her hair having regard to the place where the incident
    occurred.
    The sort of corroboration which was required here was corroboration
    of her statement that she did not consent, because the
    appellant having eventually put himself on the scene merely put·
    in issue the question of co nsent • He said that he did have
    intercourse with her but that she consented; that was virtually
    his. def’ence and the Court feels that these 0 ther matters to which
    we have ref’erred were capable of’ amounting to corroboration 0’1
    this issue.
    There is alao the fact that when the 60mplaint was first
    put to him he denied that he knew anything about the matter.
    This denial was an admitted lie because he sUbsequently admitted
    to having had intercourse with her, and that lie, it is well
    known, may also amount to corroboration of’ the girlts story.
    TRe other ground of’ appeal was that the verdict of the jury
    Iwas o.~ .. ooo •••••••
    I” 5 ..
    was unsa~e and unsatisfactory. Learned counsel referred to
    the portit)n of the evidence – in fact, he read from the judge’ 8
    summing up where tl’:e jUl ge particularly drew the a ttention o~ the
    jury to those portions of the woman’s story Wilic~l he told them
    they might regard as unusual. But the jury had to look at
    at the wh’lle of the evidence, her evidence that she wes unwilling,
    his evidence which indicated that she was unwilling, the
    loss of the watch, the fact that when she came out she was crying,
    that she persisted in her reports which she made to various
    people including the police and to balance those facts against
    what might be considered as unus1lal aspects ot: her conduct.
    They must have corre to the conclusion that they believed her
    story substantially, for they found the appellant gu~lty, and
    the Court sees no reason to interfere wi th that verdict.
    For these reasons the aTIpeal is dismissed. J:
    Allen Lewis
    CHIEF JUSTICE

    https://www.eccourts.org/errol-smith-v-the-queen/
     Prev
    Edmund Gilbert v. The Queen
    Next 
    O’Neil McIntosh FOR ORDER OF MANAGEMENT
    Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court

    2nd Floor Heraldine Rock Building
    Waterfront
    P.O. Box 1093
    Castries
    Saint Lucia
    T: +1 758 457 3600
    E: offices@eccourts.org

    • About Us
      • Court Overview
      • Career Opportunities
      • Directory
      • Privacy Policy
    • Judgments
      • Court Of Appeal
      • High Court
    • Sittings
      • Chamber Hearing
      • Court of Appeal
      • High Court
    • News & Updates
      • Appointments
      • Press Releases
    • Civil Procedure Rules
      • Court Forms
      • Practice Directions
    © 2023 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. All Rights Reserved

    Submit your email address and name to subscribe for email notifcations.

    [email-subscribers-advanced-form id="1"]
    Bookmark
    Remove Item
    Sign in to continue
    or

    Bookmarked Items
    •  Home
    • Judgments
    • Sittings
    •  News
    •  more