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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Forensic Laboratory and obtained a receipt. The four spent shells that were recoveredat the scene were also handed over at the Laboratory. On a subsequent date, hereceived results in respect of the swabs but none was received for the spent shells.[10] Miss Marcia Dunbar, the Government Analyst, also gave evidence on behalf ofthe prosecution. She had received the swab samples that were taken to the laboratoryand had conducted forensic tests on them. Examination of the swabs in bag numberone revealed the presence of gunshot residue at the intermediate level. Gunshotresidue at the trace level was found in bag number two. There was no evidence ofgunshot residue on the swab in bags numbered three – five respectively. The bag thatwas marked “1” bore a label, “right palm of Oliver Blagrove”. Bag number 2 had a labelmarked “right web of Oliver Blagrove”.[11] Miss Dunbar further testified that results which indicated an elevated levelmeant that there would be a large amount of gunshot residue. The trace level indicatedthat there is a small amount of gunshot residue. The intermediate level was a levelbetween the elevated and trace levels. She agreed that if someone was standing besidesomeone who had fired a gun there was the possibility that any of the three levelscould be attached to that person‟s hand. She further explained that the levels woulddepend on the proximity with the person who fired the gun.[12] Miss Dunbar agreed, under cross-examination, that if someone‟s hand was heldby a police officer who had recently fired or discharged a firearm it was possible thatgunpowder residue could be transferred from that police officer‟s hand to the hand of
the other person. She also agreed that it was possible for gunpowder to be transferredto a person‟s hand if he were to hold on to a desk that was used by police officers whodischarge firearms from time to time. She also said that gunpowder residue could becirculated by a fan in a room where there is gunpowder and thereby deposit it onsomeone‟s hand.[13] Detective Corporal Floyd Allen, who was stationed at May Pen Police Station on6 July 2006, recalled that on 7 July 2006, Kirk Miller had attended the CIB Office andmade a report to Detective Corporal DaCosta. He had spoken to Miller, interviewed himand recorded his statement.The No Case Submission[14] At the close of the case for the prosecution, the defence made a no casesubmission. The defence did not dispute that both Miller and Cooper were dead but itwas submitted that the prosecution had failed to adduce evidence linking the accusedwith the shooting incident. Counsel argued that neither Kirk Miller nor Tamara Cooperhad identified the accused in their respective statements as one and the same personknown as Paul Blagrove or „Schreechy‟. It was further submitted that the witnesses hadnot mentioned in their statements that Oliver Blagrove had been involved in anyshooting. Counsel also submitted that the accused was never confronted with thewitnesses in order to confirm that the accused was the person referred to in theirrespective statements.
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: cautioned him and he said: “Offic
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 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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?