The State Prosecution v William Greenaway Defendant

• Jurisdiction: Dominica
• Judge: Stephenson-Brooks J
• Judgment Date: 25 June 2010
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2010] ECSC J0625-3,[2010] ECSC (DMA) J0625-3
• Docket Number: CASE NO: DOMHCR2010/012
• Date: 25 June 2010
• Court: High Court (Dominica)

[2010] ECSC J0625-3

IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

[CRIMINAL]

CASE NO: DOMHCR2010/012

Between:

The State

Prosecution

and

William Greenaway

Defendant

Mr. Gene Pestaina Director of Public Prosecutions, for the State with Mr. Wayne Norde

Mrs. Dawn Yearwood-Stewart for the Defendant

RULING

Stephenson-Brooks J

1 On Saturday the 9 ^th June 2007 the Accused William Greenaway, the Deceased Andrew Valmond and the witness for the prosecution Benoit Douglas were selling fish from Portsmouth to Vielle Case. They were all on board the Defendant's blue Toyota van. The Defendant was driving, the Deceased was blowing the conch shell and the witness was selling the fish.

2 The Deceased Andrew Valmond was drunk on that morning and was not sitting flat on the box of the van as requested by the Defendant and he was cursing and behaving badly.

3 When the parties were through selling fish on their way back to Portsmouth they stopped in Penville to pick up two young ladies who flagged them down and requested a ride.

4 The Defendant again repeatedly asked the Deceased to sit flat and to behave and the Deceased refused to comply, whereupon according to the witness Benoit Douglas, the Defendant got out of the cab of the van and "tumbled" the Deceased out of the van.

5 The evidence led, showed that the Deceased was sitting on the top of the box of the van to the back and that the Defendant put his hand under the two legs of the deceased and threw him off the pick up.

6 The Deceased fell to the road sustaining injuries from which he subsequently died.

7 The Defendant was consequently charged with manslaughter in the death of Andrew Valmond.

8 This is a submission by the Defendant that he has no case to answer and that the charges of manslaughter preferred against him should be dismissed.

9 "Manslaughter is … a most difficult offence to define because it arises in so many different ways and as the mental element if any required to establish it varies so widely any general reference to mens rea is apt to mislead." 1

The Defendant's submissions:

10 The main thrust of Defence Counsel Mrs. Stewart's no case

submission is that the Prosecution has failed to provide any evidence of "mens rea" on the part of the accused and in the circumstances has

failed to prove the elements of the crime of manslaughter as is required of the Prosecution in all criminal cases.

11 Counsel for the Defence cited and relied extensively on the case of R-v-Scarlett2 in support of her submissions. Counsel in essence made the following contentions:

• • That the Accused is the owner of the vehicle that was being driven that day;

• • That the Deceased was a licencee on the vehicle and that the evidence led by the Prosecution clearly states that that licence was revoked and that the Defendant put the Deceased off of his vehicle as he was entitled to do. That his putting the deceased off of the vehicle was not in and of itself an unlawful act.

• • That the Prosecution has adduced evidence of actus reus but not of mens rea which they are required by law to do.

• • That the Prosecution has not provided any evidence vis a vis the mental element of the crime, that they are relying only on the evidence of actus reus.

• • That the Prosecution has to prove the unlawfulness of the Accused act, that it was a dangerous act which must be considered separately.

• • That the Prosecution has failed to adduce evidence that the accused acted with the mental element necessary, that is, "that the Defendant intentionally or recklessly applied force to the person of another". Counsel for the Defendant contends that like in the ScarletCase3 where the Defendant "bundled the Deceased towards the door", in the case at bar the Accused "tumbled the Deceased out of the van", that evidence of this action is no basis for saying that the Defendant like the appellant in the Scarlett case was reckless nor is there implication that the force used was excessive in the circumstances. That the Prosecution has to adduce evidence of the Defendant's intention which it has failed to do and that this is the essential element of the alleged offence.

• • That in the circumstances the Prosecution has failed to produce all the elements of the crime which it has to meet.

The Prosecution's case:

12 The Prosecution's case consists inter alia of the direct evidence of Benoit Douglas who attested to seeing the accused take his hand and tumble the Deceased off of

the van. He spoke to the height of the van off the ground and that when the Deceased fell he remained unmoving as far as he could see.

13 He also spoke of the Deceased's behaviour and his drunkenness and refusal to sit flat in the van and of the Accused repeatedly asking him to sit flat. His evidence was direct evidence of what the Accused did.

14 That there was also the evidence of Sebastian Paul who did not see what the Defendant allegedly did but spoke to hearing the Defendant ask the Deceased to "get off his ride and get another transport."

15 This witness also spoke of seeing the Deceased...