IN 1972 Alfred Rodrigues (now deceased) was seen leaving his premises with his “Seagull” engine and Mossberg 12-bore shotgun along with Sookraj Evans.

The “Seagull” engine was fished out of the Berbice River either on June 9 or 10.
A search party found a human skeleton in Indabo Creek which was identified as that of the deceased Alfred Rodrigues.
Following police investigations Sookraj was arrested and charged and found guilty at the Assizes on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
Sookraj appealed the decision and the Court of Appeal constituted by Chancellor E. V. Luckhoo and Justices of Appeal Guya Persaud and J. O. F. Haynes, after a three-day hearing affirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.
At the trial the prosecution led circumstantial evidence of the following nature:
(1)The deceased and the appellant left the deceased’s premises on June 7, 1972 in a boat belonging to the deceased propelled by a ‘Seagull” engine, and the deceased was carrying his Mossberg 12-bore shot gun.
(2) The deceased was shot and killed and it was not an accident. The more probable dates of the shooting would have been June 7, 8, 9 or 10.
(3)On the morning of June 8 the appellant was seen in the Abary Creek in a boat which had been seen on previous occasions moored at the deceased’s landing; he was alone and he said that the deceased had gone further up the creek.
(4) About 1 a.m. on June 9, he was seen at Fern Village with certain articles, one of which was a 12-bore Mossberg shotgun. The boat was light blue in colour and had a “Seagull” engine.
(5) The “Seagull” engine belonging to the deceased was fished out of the Berbice River either on June 9 or 10.
(6) Certain articles, the property of the deceased were found in the possession of the appellant when he was arrested.
(7) Those articles had not been taken by the deceased when he and the appellant had set out on the morning of June 7, but there were signs that the deceased’s house had been broken into between June 7 and 17, and those articles were found to be missing.
(8) At Indabo Creek on June 19 a search party found a human skeleton the skull of which was separated from the body and under its rib-cage, a wrist-watch strapped to a piece of bone by means of a shirt and dentures in the skull. The skeleton was identified as that of the deceased, Alfred Rodrigues.

Chancellor Luckhoo declared that an autopsy revealed the presence of pellet holes at the back of the skull and the fact that death could have been caused by the discharge of a shotgun sometime between June 7 and 10, the inference being that the deceased had been shot in the head from behind.
The evidence being circumstantial, the point which was argued on appeal was whether the trial judge gave the jury adequate and appropriate directions on the approach to evidence of such a nature.
Having directed that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, he went on to say that they were entitled to draw an inference, from the facts in favour of the State if it was “stronger” than one that can be drawn in favour of the defence.
The point for consideration was whether further or special directions on circumstantial evidence were still necessary, notwithstanding a general direction on the standard of proof had already been given, namely, that it was proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In his judgment, Justice of Appeal, Guya Persaud held: “That whatever formula is used in directing juries on circumstantial evidence, it amounts to no more than telling them the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner beyond reasonable doubt, for if a reasonable hypothesis arises from the evidence which the jury accepts as being consistent with the prisoner’s innocence, the prosecution will not have satisfied the degree of proof required to bring home the guilt of the prisoner.”
(2) “That there is no need to give any further or special direction to that portion of the summing-up, as in the subsequent passages, the judge left the matter in no doubt, viz., that the jury must examine the evidence narrowly and must be sure of the appellant’s guilt before convicting him.”
(3) Justice of Appeal, Haynes held: “That the Guyana Court of Appeal should act on the principle that although for obvious reasons it will be predisposed to accept and normally will accept a judgment of the House of Lords on a point of English Common Law as correct and as our law, it has jurisdictional freedom and a constitutional judicial duty to hold differently, if we are convinced fully on just grounds that the principle or rule laid down in it, or the declaration of what is not the common law, is misconceived and wrong.
(4) “That in cases of circumstantial evidence, it would be at least desirable and certainly helpful to tell juries that to be satisfied of the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt they must be sure that his guilt is the only reasonable explanation of the true facts.
(5) “That even if a special direction is not compulsory, the summing-up on the whole was quite adequate and it is impossible to hold that the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence.”
(6) “That the cumulative effect of the judge’s directions was to make it plain that guilt had to be the only reasonable hypothesis or explanation of the facts accepted as true which is what a special direction really means.”
“Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence affirmed.”

(By George Barclay)