7,424 judgments 29,712 public-register documents 143,540 judgment pages 132,515 public-register pages 276,055 total pages
Judgment

R v Winston Williams

Crim App 0176/1972 · 1973-06-13

Assault, grievous bodily harm, wounding with intent; Identification evidence insufficiency

Full metadata
Cause Number Crim App 0176/1972
Court CICA (Crim)
Judge Fox JA, Grannun JA, Robinson JA
Parties R v Winston Williams
Judgment Date 1973-06-13
Subject Assault, grievous bodily harm, wounding with intent; Identification evidence insufficiency
Filename (current) 73-06-15_r_v_winston_williams.pdf
Full text11 paragraphs Download PDF

Use paragraph links to cite this judgment, or download the original PDF. Select text to copy a passage.

In the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands — Criminal Division
Cause No. Crim App 0176/1972
Between
R
- v -
Winston Williams
Before
Fox JA, Grannun JA, Robinson JA
Judgment delivered 1973-06-13

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 176/72

BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Fox, Presiding
The Hon. Mr. Justice Robinson
The Hon. Mr. Justice Granum

Mr. Martin Wright, Q.C., Dep. D.P.P. for the Crown
Mr. Norman Wright for the appellant.

GRAND CAYMAN B.W.I.
COUNSEL
CHAMBERS

15TH JUNE, 1973

ROBINSON, J.A. (Ag.)

On the 31st of October, 1972, the appellant, Winston Williams was convicted on an indictment containing three counts - assault with intent to rob with aggravation with certain other person unknown being armed with guns, a man by the name of Sydney Barnes, also shooting at Sydney Barnes with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, and the third charge was wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm - sentence amounted to 8 years hard labour.

In this case his application for leave to appeal against conviction was granted by a single judge on the 6th of April, this year.

One of the main grounds of appeal is that the evidence as to identification was not strong enough to support the conviction. With this we agree having gone through the summing-up in relation to this particular ground of appeal. The judge himself seemed to have come to that conclusion when he said that: "it appeared to me that the identification in the case is very poor."

In our view the evidence is incapable of establishing the identification of the accused man, and this goes to the root of the charges, and therefore the appeal is allowed, conviction quashed and the sentences set aside.

Find similar