Vinson Ariste v The King (Bahamas)
[2023] UKPC 18
Anton Bastian v The King (Bahamas)
11 June 2024
[2024] UKPC 14
Privy Council
Bastian was wrongly convicted of murder and armed robbery. The judge didn't explain the law properly to the jury, and there wasn't enough evidence to prove he was guilty of the most serious charges. He might face a new trial for the lesser charge of manslaughter, and he's definitely guilty of the lesser charge of robbery.
Key Facts
- •Anton Bastian (appellant) and co-defendants were convicted of murder and armed robbery.
- •The convictions were based primarily on two oral statements made by the appellant to police officers.
- •The appellant's caution statement and record of interview were ruled inadmissible due to oppression and police brutality.
- •The appellant denied making the oral statements and presented an alibi, which was not properly served.
- •The trial judge rejected a submission of no case to answer and refused to leave lesser alternative charges (manslaughter and robbery) to the jury.
- •The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
- •The Privy Council appeal focused on issues of joint enterprise liability, the adequacy of jury directions, and the propriety of alternative verdicts.
Legal Principles
Joint enterprise liability requires proof of participation (assistance or encouragement) and intention to assist or encourage the crime, including the necessary mental element.
R v Jogee; Ruddock v The Queen [2016] UKSC 8
In The Bahamas, the mens rea of murder is an intention to kill; foresight of the possibility of killing is not sufficient for joint enterprise liability.
Farquharson v The Queen [1973] AC 786; Rodney Johnson v The Queen SCCrApp No 100 of 2012
A trial judge must leave to the jury alternative verdicts for lesser offences if obviously raised by the evidence.
R v Coutts [2006] UKHL 39
Section 12(3) of the Penal Code of The Bahamas is an evidential provision regarding intention, not a definition of mens rea for joint enterprise liability.
Miller v The King [2023] UKPC 10
Outcomes
Appellant's convictions for murder and armed robbery quashed.
Serious defects in the trial judge's summing up regarding joint enterprise, specifically misdirections on foresight and intention, and failure to leave alternative verdicts to the jury.
Matter remitted to the Court of Appeal to consider a retrial for manslaughter.
The evidence was insufficient to support a safe conviction for murder, but a conviction for manslaughter, which requires a lower level of mens rea, may be possible.
Conviction for robbery substituted for armed robbery, remitted for resentencing.
The evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for armed robbery on joint enterprise, due to lack of proof regarding the appellant's prior knowledge of the gun.