Williams’ appeal quashed

Luke Williams shook his head in disbelief all the way back to Her Majesty’s Prison after he learned his appeal against a murder conviction had been quashed.{{more}}

On Wednesday, at a sitting of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal, Williams, who is currently serving a 25-year custodial sentence for the December 2007 stabbing of his cousin, Terry Browne, had the two grounds of his appeal dismissed by Chief Justice Hugh Rawlins, Justices of appeal Davidson Kelvin Baptiste and Frederick Bruce-Lyle.

Appearing on the appellant’s behalf, lawyer Richard Williams argued on the grounds that the verdict handed down was unsafe and unsatisfactory and that the learned trial judge misdirected the jury on the issue of self-defence.

Williams argued that in his client’s caution statement to the police, the appellant mentioned that the deceased, 36, was coming at him with a piece of pipe in his hands when he used a pair of scissors to stab the deceased once, in self defense.

He added that the evidence given by the appellant’s witness was also consistent with that of the appellant, that the deceased had struck the appellant with the pipe.

Williams noted that the trial judge, in her summation, kept pointing out inconsistencies with the appellant’s and his witness’s account of what took place on the tragic day on December 31, 2007, at Rose Hall. Had the judge directed the jury properly, the lawyer said, a not guilty verdict may have been the outcome of the case.

“There is evidence otherwise to show that the deceased struck the appellant, and I think this is a prime case for retrial,” Williams opined.

Director of Public Prosecutions, Colin Williams, in his response noted that there is no where in the testimony of the appellant’s witness that he (Luke) was struck with the pipe. The DPP stated that the counsel for the appellant never cross-examined that point and the witness only said that the deceased raised his hands to hit Luke.

Chief Justice Hugh Rawlins said that the judge may have had grounds in giving directions as it relates to self-defense. Rawlins said he was satisfied when looking at the record of the case and came to the conclusion that the appellant’s witness misspoke.

“In every aspect of the case, he (the witness) was quite clear that he saw the deceased raise the pipe and was bringing it down to strike the appellant, but never stated that he struck Williams.(KW)