Blagrove (Oliver) v R.pdf - The Court of Appeal

More documents

Recommendations

Info

[31] In relation to ground 3, Mrs Gordon-Harrison submitted that when one carefullyexamines the statement of each deceased witness there is no grave or materialdifference as to the manner in which the shooting incident unfolded. Both witnesses shesaid, spoke of three identifiable shots followed by a number of other gunshots. Shefurther submitted that if there were differences they were immaterial and that eachwitness spoke from his/her own perspective and as was reasonable, could only give anaccount of the event from the juncture at which he or she started observing theincident.[32] Counsel submitted that, as to the offence itself of shooting with intent there wasevidence which substantiated the offence. Miller had in fact stated at page 84 lines 7-12:"... I saw Paul Blagrove and another man I know as 'Blacks', andI saw Paul had a black gun in his right hand. He pointed it inthe direction of my house, I then heard two moreexplosions. I saw blue flames coming from the mouth of thegun." (emphasis supplied)She submitted that for her part, Cooper, in her statement as recorded at page 88 lines 19-20,stated:“I saw Screechy holding a gun in his hand pointing toward the house."And she continued at page 89 lines 5-8, thus"... as I look through the window I saw when Screechy firedthree shots in our house. I was able to see flashes of light fromwhere Screechy was."
[33] Mrs Gordon-Harrison further submitted that there was other evidence whichcame from Detective Sergeant DaCosta and Constable Patroy Gayle which hadsubstantiated the offence of shooting with intent. Both officers had mentioned thepresence of a gunshot hole and impression in the board house and a gunshotimpression on the handle of drill which was inside the house. Counsel thereforesubmitted that when the applicant pointed the gun at the house in which thecomplainants were present and fired at it, he was reckless as to whether they were infact inside and reckless as to any injury which they could have sustained. Shesubmitted that the requisite ingredients necessary to prove the 'intent' wereestablished.[34] With respect to ground 4, counsel argued that while the Crown agrees thatthere was no mention of' the name „Oliver Blagrove' in the statement of either of thetwo witnesses, there was sufficient context provided as to surrounding 'identifyingfactors' from which the specificity of the applicant could be recognized. She thereforesubmitted that on the Crown‟s case there was sufficient, cogent and specificidentification evidence which properly connected the applicant to the offence(s); as aconsequence it could not be successfully contended that the learned trial judge erred innot acceding to the submission of no case to answer made by learned defence counselat the trial.
Page 1 and 2: [2011] JMCA Crim 24JAMAICAIN THE CO
Page 3 and 4: lights. I obtained the light from m
Page 5 and 6: from glass, on Thursday the 6th of
Page 7 and 8: cautioned him and he said: “Offic
Page 9 and 10: the other person. She also agreed t
Page 11 and 12: proceedings, because I see as hesti
Page 13 and 14: not search him. However, the driver
Page 15 and 16: The Grounds of Appeal[24] The singl
Page 17: stood near to a person who discharg
Page 21 and 22: Section 31(G), to which section 31(
Page 23 and 24: one and the same person referred to
Page 25 and 26: Miller's statement, were that he wa
Page 27 and 28: I recognised that none of those sta
Page 29: His evidence further indicated that

Blagrove (Oliver) v R.pdf - The Court of Appeal

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?