Shawn Campbell, Adidja Palmer, Kahira Jones and Andre St John v The King No 2 (Jamaica)
[2024] UKPC 6
Mohamad Jiaved Ruhumatally v The State and another (Mauritius)
18 June 2024
[2024] UKPC 15
Privy Council
A man was convicted of murder in Mauritius. The judge made mistakes in explaining the evidence to the jury, leading to an unfair trial. The higher court threw out the conviction and ordered a new trial, where the prosecution may charge the man with the less serious crime of manslaughter.
Key Facts
- •Mohamad Jiaved Ruhumatally convicted of murder in 2015 for the death of Mr. Marie Gerald Lagesse during a bank robbery.
- •Ruhumatally's role involved tying a shirt over Lagesse's mouth after he was already bound and gagged.
- •The main issue was whether Ruhumatally intended to kill and if the act was premeditated.
- •The trial judge made errors in his summing up, misrepresenting evidence regarding the shirt's position (over the nose and mouth) and misdirecting the jury on the presumption of intent.
- •The appeal challenged the conviction and sentence on multiple grounds, primarily focusing on the judge's errors and the fairness of the trial.
Legal Principles
In Mauritius, there is no presumption of law that a person intends the natural consequences of their acts. The jury must determine intent based on evidence.
Mauritius Criminal Code
Premeditation in Mauritius requires a 'cooling off period', however short, where the accused consciously decides to kill.
Mauritius Criminal Code and Trial Judge's Direction
An appellate court can quash a conviction if the verdict is unreasonable, unsupported by evidence, based on a wrong decision of law, or if there was a miscarriage of justice. They can also declare a trial a nullity and order a retrial.
Section 6 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1955
A multitude of weak arguments by the defense does not create grounds for appeal if the stronger points have been considered fairly.
Board's own judgment
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.
The trial judge's errors regarding the evidence of the shirt's position and his misdirection on intent constituted a serious irregularity leading to a substantial miscarriage of justice.
A retrial ordered.
The Board exercised its power under section 6(1)(c) of the 1955 Act to declare the trial a nullity due to the judge's errors. The prosecution may choose to proceed with a lesser charge of manslaughter.