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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

[46] We do agree with Mrs Gordon-Harrison that based on the evidence the learnedjudge could have properly concluded that Paul Blagrove and Oliver Blagrove is one andthe same person. Miller in his statement did speak of Paul Blagrove otherwise called“Screechie” as the person who is owner of a Toyota Hiace Bus and that he was once aconductor on that bus that was driven by one “David”. It will be recalled that theapplicant had said in evidence that David was his driver. Under cross- examination theapplicant agreed that he would at times allow his driver David and the conductor to putgas oil in the bus. The applicant had also agreed that Miller was once his conductor buthad ceased working for him on 2 July 2007. Now, it had been mentioned by Miller in hisstatement that “Paul” had told them, that is, he and David, that they could work thebus on Sundays and pay themselves provided that full tank of gas oil was in the bus onMonday morning.[47] Miller had also stated that this person, Paul Blagrove, lived in Evans Street andLewis Street area. The applicant in his evidence said he lived at 13 Lewis Street, MayPen at the time of the incident. As a matter of fact, the police having received thereports from both Miller and Cooper did in fact visit the home of the applicant at LewisStreet. He was seen there and was taken into custody from that address. Miller had alsoprovided the names of Blagrove‟s relatives and the persons with whom he lived. Theapplicant did say that this house where he lived was owned by his mother. It is alsoworthy of note that Miller did mention that there was some disagreement betweenhimself and this Blagrove individual in relation to the bus on which he was a conductor.
His evidence further indicated that this was the same person who came to his housesome days later and fired shots at/into his house.[48] We have carefully examined the evidence and the directions given by thelearned judge and are satisfied that the learned judge had reminded herself atconsiderable length, and with scrupulous care, about the circumstances bearing uponthe quality of the identification evidence, and the opportunity which presented itself toboth Miller and Cooper in recognizing the applicant as the person who was seen armedwith a firearm and who had fired shots from that firearm in the direction of the housewhich they occupied. It is our view that the learned judge did address her mind to theTurnbull guidelines and had properly warned herself about relying on statements givenby the deceased witnesses. We firmly believe that her directions cannot be flawed.[49] We also find no merit in the arguments raised on behalf of the applicant inground 4 and this ground also fails.Conclusion[50] We find no merit in this application. In the circumstances, the applicationseeking leave to appeal is refused. Sentence is to commence as of 12 October 2007.
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 and 18: stood near to a person who discharg
Page 19 and 20: [33] Mrs Gordon-Harrison further su
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: I recognised that none of those sta

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?