The King v Jahbery Jackson
| Jurisdiction | St Vincent and the Grenadines |
| Judge | Floyd J |
| Judgment Date | 25 March 2024 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2024] ECSC J0325-3 |
| Year | 2024 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Vincent) |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. SVGHCR 2020/0026 |
CASE NO. SVGHCR 2020/0026
EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(CRIMINAL)
Ms. Kay Bachus-Baptiste, Counsel for the Applicant
Mr. Richie Maitland & Ms. Maria Jackson-Richards Crown Counsel for the Respondent
Floyd J [Ag]: This is an application to exclude the statements of the Applicant, Jahbery Jackson aka Michael Richards. The primary statement was obtained during an electronically recorded police interview conducted on 15 th November 2018. However, two other statements were obtained, and both of those are at issue as well. The first, was a statement obtained from the applicant by police, at the Central Police Station, where he was brought when he was initially arrested, on 14 th November 2018. That statement was not electronically recorded. The remaining statement was obtained from the applicant when he was taken to the scene of the incident by police on 16 th November 2018. That statement was not electronically recorded. The applicant is charged with the offence of murder.
On the14th November 2018, at Paul Over, two masked men, armed with handguns, robbed a local store, in broad daylight. In doing so, the shopkeeper, Sabitree Lyttle, was shot and killed. The gunmen escaped. Police were alerted, and descended upon the crime scene. They commenced a search. Later that day, the defendant was arrested, and taken into custody.
Although neighbours heard and saw portions of the incident, no one was able to identify the gunmen, as their faces were covered, and they escaped. The defendant was seen in the vicinity, and was provided with some water by another shopkeeper.
Upon his arrest, the defendant was taken to the Central Police Station, and turned over to the investigating officer, Sgt. Quow. The transporting officer, Sgt. Morgan, advised that the defendant had indicated a desire to give a statement or provide information about the incident. Sgt. Quow spoke to the defendant and made notes in the presence of Supt. Ballantyne. However, that statement was not electronically recorded, and the written notes did not confirm that a police caution had been administered.
The defendant was placed into the holding area overnight, and the following day, an electronic statement was obtained under caution, and after rights to counsel had been provided. The defendant identified the gunmen as “Gobbler” and “Steppie.” They were known to him, and had approached him on the day of the incident, as he was walking. Each had a pistol. They asked him to “govern” the area, or act as a lookout, while they went on a “mission.” It was unclear to the defendant what the two men intended to do. He later heard some gunshots and saw “Gobbler” running away. He described the clothing worn by the two men, which matched what other witnesses had seen at the time of the incident.
On 16th November 2018, the defendant went with police to the crime scene, and pointed out locations where he and the two gunmen had been, and provided other information. The police took notes during that interaction, and it became a signed statement of the applicant. Those notes contain a police caution acknowledged by the applicant.
Later that day, the defendant was taken to the local hospital after ingesting a toxic substance. He remained there until his discharge back to police custody on 20 th November 2018.
The defendant was charged with murder. “Gobbler” and “Steppie” were never charged with this crime, and both passed away 2 – 3 years later.
As this court has previously held in the case of The Queen v Maybe Rodriguez, et al BVI HCR No. 5 of 2019, statements given by detained suspects to police, particularly those described as being confessions, must be given voluntarily. The determination of this is a question of law. Considerations must include weather the statement was influenced by violent, oppressive, inhuman, or degrading conduct. If so, it may adversely affect the truth of the statement. For the statement to be admissible, it must be made voluntarily, and not in breach of the privilege against self-incrimination. A statement or confession made to a person in authority implicating the detained suspect must be given without fear, prejudice, hope or advantage. Nothing must be done which saps the free will of the suspect. No threats, promises or inducements can be made to encourage the statement. The judge hearing an application regarding such a statement must ensure a fair trial according to law. That includes the consideration of all acts done, words spoken, and all surrounding circumstances.
Section 1(a) of the Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Constitution Order, CAP 10, states that every person is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms of life, liberty, security of the person, and the protection of the law. Section 5 of the constitution confirms that no person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment. Section 8(2)(a) and (b) of the constitution states that anyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent, and shall be informed, as soon as reasonably practicable, in a language that he understands, and in detail, of the nature of the offence. All of those sections are at play in this application.
The court, when ensuring a fair trial, may exclude otherwise admissible evidence if it is determined that its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. That will include confessions and admissions obtained from a suspect by improper or unfair means. It is incumbent upon the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement or confession was obtained voluntarily. All of this is well established at law, however, see Blackstone's Criminal Practice 2010 at F2. 1, F2.3 and F2.10.
The consideration of the circumstances surrounding the obtaining of the statement includes the suspect's mental condition at the time of the confession. Reference is made to Blackstone's Criminal Practice 2010 at F17.15. The test to be applied is an objective one. It is not what the police officers' thought (if they thought anything) about the mental condition of the suspect, but instead the actual condition of the suspect, as subsequently ascertained by a medical doctor.
In cases where the mental condition of the suspect is a relevant factor, expert evidence is admissible, if it demonstrates some form of abnormality, relevant to the reliability of a suspect's confession. The operative consideration is simply whether the abnormality might render the confession unreliable. The physical and mental condition of the suspect, and the particular vulnerability of the suspect is part of the background and circumstances that must be considered. Is the statement likely to be unreliable, owing to the suspect's ill health, if any, at the time?
The Interviewing of Suspects for Serious Crimes Act, 2012 deals with confessions and admissions. Section 4(1) states that a custodial interview must be recorded. Section 9(1) confirms that an electronically recorded statement, which is relevant, may be admitted into evidence unless it is shown that it was unfairly obtained. If the statement is challenged, then reference is made to s. 9(2), which states that it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was made by the defendant voluntarily, and is reliable. All of this legislation codifies much of the case law established in this area, and relates it directly to proceedings in this jurisdiction.
Under s. 6.1 of the First Schedule of the Act, an electronically recorded interview of a suspect who is a vulnerable person must (emphasis added) take place in the presence of an appropriate adult. Vulnerable person, is described under s. 1.2 of the Second Schedule to include a mentally disordered or otherwise mentally vulnerable person. Appropriate adult, is defined under s. 1.2(b), in the case of a mentally disordered or mentally vulnerable person, to be a relative, guardian or someone responsible for his care or custody, or someone experienced in dealing with mentally disordered or mentally vulnerable persons, but who is not a member of a law enforcement agency.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that all three of the statements attributed to the applicant should be excluded. He was suffering from a mental illness at the time, and had been subjected to physical violence by the police prior to giving his first statement. The applicant did not have an operating mind at the time, such that he could comprehend his situation, and the jeopardy that he was facing. He was physically and mentally ill. The Crown, it is submitted, has failed to discharge its obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements are reliable, and were obtained voluntarily.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the mental illness of the applicant is confirmed in the medical evidence of the treating physician, Dr. Karen Providence, and the hospital file. This indicates that the applicant suffered from mild psychosis, based on satisfying two of the five medically recognized symptoms, and cannabis use induced psychosis. Major depressive disorder had not been ruled out when he was discharged. He had been prescribed diazepam, although it may not have been actually administered during his hospital stay. Anti-psychotic drugs were to be started once his lab results were normal, although no such drugs were received by the applicant before he was discharged. He was recommended for follow up with the psychiatric department upon discharge. His mental illness is obvious, it is submitted, to anyone viewing the demeanor of the applicant during the electronic interview.
Counsel for the applicant also took...
To continue reading
Request your trial