R V WORRELL 1972
West Indian Reports/Volume 19 /R v Worrell - (1972) 19 WIR 180
(1972) 19 WIR 180
R v Worrell
COURT OF APPEAL OF BARBADOS
DOUGLAS CJ, WARD AND WILLIAMS JJ
29 MARCH 1972
Criminal Law - Standard of proof - Directions to jury - Jury told that before there can be a verdict of guilty, the prosecution must make the jury feel sure that the verdict is the right one - Imprecise.
Criminal Law - Defence of automatism - Unsworn statement of accused - No foundation for defence.
The appellant was convicted of the murder of his wife and sentenced to death. On his appeal it was con-tended, inter alia, that: (i) the learned trial judge's directions to the jury on standard of proof were defective; and (ii) the learned trial judge was in error when he held that there was no foundation in the evidence for the defence of automatism.
With respect to (i), the learned trial judge told the jury on a few occasions in the course of his summing‑up that, before there can be a verdict of guilty, the prosecution must make the jury feel sure that the verdict is the right one. The use of the word "right" was criticized on the ground that it was imprecise.
With respect to (ii), the learned trial judge held that there was no evidence in the case to support the defence of automatism. It was submitted that the unsworn statement of the appellant was sufficient for the purpose. In this statement he spoke of having been beaten by his sons, of having received blows on his head, and of having subsequently experienced "black‑outs". As to the day of the incident, he remembered setting off to pick coconuts for an old lady. He could not remember whether he reached the old lady's residence but found himself in hospital and was later told that he was charged for killing his wife.
Held: (i) that a judge should not introduce concepts which are imprecise and may introduce doubt in the minds of the jury as to their function. In the circumstances there was some validity in the
(1972) 19 WIR 180
R v Worrell
COURT OF APPEAL OF BARBADOS
DOUGLAS CJ, WARD AND WILLIAMS JJ
29 MARCH 1972
Criminal Law - Standard of proof - Directions to jury - Jury told that before there can be a verdict of guilty, the prosecution must make the jury feel sure that the verdict is the right one - Imprecise.
Criminal Law - Defence of automatism - Unsworn statement of accused - No foundation for defence.
The appellant was convicted of the murder of his wife and sentenced to death. On his appeal it was con-tended, inter alia, that: (i) the learned trial judge's directions to the jury on standard of proof were defective; and (ii) the learned trial judge was in error when he held that there was no foundation in the evidence for the defence of automatism.
With respect to (i), the learned trial judge told the jury on a few occasions in the course of his summing‑up that, before there can be a verdict of guilty, the prosecution must make the jury feel sure that the verdict is the right one. The use of the word "right" was criticized on the ground that it was imprecise.
With respect to (ii), the learned trial judge held that there was no evidence in the case to support the defence of automatism. It was submitted that the unsworn statement of the appellant was sufficient for the purpose. In this statement he spoke of having been beaten by his sons, of having received blows on his head, and of having subsequently experienced "black‑outs". As to the day of the incident, he remembered setting off to pick coconuts for an old lady. He could not remember whether he reached the old lady's residence but found himself in hospital and was later told that he was charged for killing his wife.
Held: (i) that a judge should not introduce concepts which are imprecise and may introduce doubt in the minds of the jury as to their function. In the circumstances there was some validity in the