‘No licks for ferocious chopper’

THE Privy Council ruled yesterday that a Tobago man who was found guilty of attempting to murder his girlfriend must not receive the 15 strokes with the birch as ordered by the judge.

Although the Law Lords dismissed the man’s appeal against conviction, they varied the sentence. The Privy Council said that the 20-year sentence imposed by the judge will start from the date of conviction in 1995. The Law Lords rejected submissions from the appellant on the conduct of the defence attorney and the judge at the trial. The Privy Council comprised Lords Hoffman, Scott and Rodger, Sir Andrew Leggatt, and Sir Philip Otton. Marcelle Skeete was found guilty before Justice Lennox Deyalsingh at the Tobago Assizes on June 7, 1995 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a condition that he must not be released before the expiration of 20 years. The judge also ordered that Skeete receive 15 strokes with the birch.

According to the facts, Skeete went to the home of Sherry Ann Hector in Tobago around 11 pm on June 20, 1990. Hector had a child for Skeete some years before. There were two other people in the house at the time. Using a cutlass, Skeete inflicted on Hector some 25 chops of varying depths, 20 of which were potentially fatal. Although she survived, Hector’s injuries were appalling, according to the Law Lords. They pointed out that her left hand had almost been severed, and some five years later, she had no sight in her left eye and was unable to open her right hand.

The day after the incident, Skeete went to the Old Grange Police Station and gave a statement to the police. “Sir, I went by Sherry Ann Hector last night and I meet another man there and I call she out and tell she about it and she deny it. She then pick up a cutlass and I take it away from she and planass she and she get cut. She then start to push she self against the cutlass and say “ah go kill myself and let them hang you.” Former State attorney Evans Welch prosecuted, while Lawrence Des Vignes represented Skeete. Skeete appealed against the conviction, but the appeal was not heard until 1998. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, but could not interfere with the sentence as there was no appeal against it.

At the Privy Council, James Dingemanns QC appeared for the appellant. Dingemanns complained that in spite of the seriousness of the offence, proper instructions were not taken by defence counsel. Also, there was limited cross-examination, and the judge was left unaware of the nature of the defence being advanced by Skeete. Dingemanns submitted that given the terms of Skeete’s statement to the police, if the defence had been properly conducted, there should have been a challenge to much of the prosecution’s case. However, the Law Lords said they could not accept the submissions, even though they were advanced with skill and determination. Lord Rodger, in his judgment, noted that in the Court of Appeal, Justice Sat Sharma, who is of course, very familiar with local conditions, rejected Skeete’s affidavit about the instructions to counsel as lacking bona fides and as typical of what he saw as a prevalent abuse of the appeal procedures.

Dingemanns criticised the judge’s summing up and his general attitude towards the defence. He complained that the judge had made a number of comments which effectively conveyed to the jury that they had nothing to discuss, that the prosecution’s case was fully made out and that their verdict would be inevitable. Dingemanns submitted that while a trial judge is entitled to comment adversely on issues raised during the trial, he must be careful not to undermine the trial process. But the Law Lords disagreed with the submission, saying it was only prudent for the judge to ask for counsel’s assistance in identifying live issues. They found that the judge gave careful and indeed elaborate directions on law during his summing up.

The Privy Council found there was no miscarriage of justice. The evidence, according to the Law Lords, showed that Skeete had subjected the woman to a ferocious and sustained attack with the cutlass. This was demonstrated by the number and depth of the wounds and not least by the fact that the woman was blinded and her left hand nearly severed. They found that the wounds showed that Hector was trying to defend herself.