Jackson & Ors v. The Queen, Court of Appeal - Privy Council, July 07, 2009,  UKPC 28
|Resolution Date:||July 07, 2009|
|Issuing Organization:||Privy Council|
|Actores:||Jackson & Ors v. The Queen|
 UKPC 28
Jackson & Ors v. The Queen (Jamaica)  UKPC 28 (07 July 2009)
Privy Council Appeal No 81 of 2008
(1) Hayden Jackson
(2) Addis Jackson
(3) Altimont Jarrett Appellants
The Queen Respondent
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL
COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL
Delivered the 7th July 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Scott of Foscote
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Lord Collins of Mapesbury
Sir Christopher Rose
Sir Henry Brooke
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Delivered by Lord Rodger of Earlsferry]
In October 2001 all three appellants stood trial, before Justice W James and a jury in the Circuit Court for the Parish of St Ann, for the murder of Clinton Miller in the grounds of St Ann's Bay Hospital on 11 March 2000. They were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Their applications for leave to appeal against their convictions and sentences were dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 26 February 2004. The court ordered that their sentences should run from 10 January 2002. It appears that the appellants were not represented before the Court of Appeal and that the court delivered an oral judgment which was not recorded. It can only be assumed that, in the absence of any professional representation, the court was satisfied that there had been no miscarriage of justice.
There was, unfortunately, a long delay between the judgment of the Court of Appeal and the lodging of the petitions for special leave to appeal to the Board as poor persons. The petitions were eventually heard in January 2009 and Her Majesty made the formal order granting special leave to appeal on 11 February 2009. Their Lordships are only too well aware of the difficulties which people in the appellants' position experience in finding solicitors and counsel who can mount an appeal before the Board. Nevertheless, they can only express their dismay at the delay of almost 5 years - coupled with their gratitude for the assistance provided, both at and after the hearing, by agents and counsel on both sides.
The first appellant, Hayden Jackson, is the father of the second appellant, Addis Jackson, and the stepfather of the third appellant, Altimont Jarrett. Although all three appellants were represented by the same agents and counsel both at trial and before the Board, for reasons which will become apparent, the position of Addis Jackson differs in an important respect from the position of Hayden Jackson and Altimont Jarrett.
Mr Bompas QC advanced three grounds of appeal before the Board. The first was to the effect that the trial judge should have given the jury a special warning about the need for caution in accepting the evidence of Dane Miller, the principal witness for the Crown. The second was that the trial judge's directions on the law and, more particularly, on the law of joint enterprise were radically defective. The third was that evidence of the appellants' good character should have been led and the judge should have been asked to give an appropriate good character direction. Since this last point was raised for the first time before the Board, as their Lordships have emphasised on a number of occasions, e g in Teeluck v State of Trinidad and Tobago  1 WLR 2421, 2432-2433, paras 38 and 39, they would have been reluctant to entertain it. In the event, however, they do not find it necessary to consider either the first or the third ground...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL