I, DeLeon C. Richardson hereby state that this paper is my own work in accordance with the University’s rules and policies related to academic integrity.
Dated: __23rd October 2012___________________
Name: _Deleon Richardson____________________
Case: Nimrod Miguel (Appellant) v The State (Respondent)
Court: Privy Council
Date of Decision: June 15th 2011
Citation:  UKPC 14
Procedural History: Nimrod Miguel was convicted of murder at his trial and was given the death sentence. Mr. Miguel appealed to the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago who dismissed his appeal. He then appealed to the Privy Council. Facts: The appellant and four other men robbed the victim’s car; the appellant then tied him up and searched his car. After refusing to shoot the deceased, he walked off, and as he was walking, his counterpart shot the victim. The appellant’s fingerprints were found on the number plates which led to his arrest. Issues 1) Was there misdirection as to “withdrawal”?
2) Should the judge have allowed the appellant’s statements to be admitted as evidence even though it was against Judges’ rules? 3) Was the jury misdirected as to the approach to the statements? 4) Was the death sentence ‘unconstitutional’?
Judgment- Appeal on conviction- dismissed.
Appeal on sentence – allowed.
Rule of law- The jury was not misdirected as to “withdrawal”. To address the issue of withdrawal, the felony rule and joint enterprise needs consideration. The crucial questions for the jury were: did the appellant commit an arrestable offence? Did the victim die while the offence was being committed? It cannot be submitted that jury was misdirected under the felony murder rule. He also...