IN 1988 Jennifer Swamy was convicted of murder on the evidence of impression of her palm print at the scene of a crime of murder.

But on appeal, the Guyana Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction and sentence after concluding that the jury’s verdict had resulted from a misdirection by the trial judge.
The facts of the case disclosed that the Appellant was convicted of murder in 1988.
The evidence relied upon by the prosecution was the impression of a ‘palm print’ at the scene of the crime. The expert testimony of a police detective was the only evidence linking the defendant to the crime.
The trial judge told the jury that they should not disregard the expert witness without good reasons. The appellant contended that this was a ‘misdirection.’
The Appellate Court was constituted by Chancellor Kenneth George and Justices of Appeal Mr. Cecil Kennard and Madame Desiree Bernard.
Mr. Kennard who delivered the judgment of the court held that : (i)The jury was free to believe the witnesses’ evidence, including expert witnesses. However, the judge’s direction to the jury that they should not disregard the expert witness without good reasons, was a misdirection that misled them to find the Appellant guilty;
(ii) A retrial would be impossible due to time elapsed. Bearing in mind the time that a retrial would take, it would be oppressive to the appellant.
“Appeal allowed, conviction set aside”, the Court of Appeal had ruled.
The Appellate Court referred to 11 cases in arriving at its judgment.
Mr. Peter Britton, S.C with Mrs. D. Backer appeared for the Appellant.
Mr. Ian Chang, S.C Deputy Director of Prosecution represented for the State
Delivering the judgment of the Court, Justice of Appeal Kennard said: “On the 13th May, 1988 at the Demerara Assizes, the Appellant Jennifer Swamy was convicted for the offence of murder.
“The allegation against her was that on the 25th October 1985 she had murdered one Jane Maxius.
“The evidence which was led in the High Court trial reveals that the deceased lived at the home of Joseph Gassonette and his reputed wife June Moore at Lot 18 Charles Street ,Charlestown, Georgetown.
“It would appear that Gassonette was a miner and that he and his reputed wife made frequent visits to the interior district of Potaro. When they were out of Georgetown the deceased would be left in charge of the home.
“Sometime in the month of August 1985, Gassonette and his reputed wife left Charlestown for the interior, leaving the deceased in charge of the home and their three children. Evidence was also given at the trial that the Appellant was a visitor of that home and that two days prior to the departure of Gasonette for the interior she (the Appellant) had left his home, having spent several days there.
“In the yard in which the deceased lived was one Andrew Persaud, who occupied a nearby building . On the relevant day, that is to say, on the 25th October 1985, about 10 a.m. Andrew Persaud saw the Appellant on the stairway which led to the upper flat of the building where Gassonette lived. She appeared to be going down the stairs. She made some enquiries of Andrew Persaud concerning the deceased, the reply of Andrew Persaud was that he did not know whether the deceased was at home.
“However, earlier that morning about 8 a.m. the deceased was seen by Andrew Persaud at a pipe in the yard filling a bucket with water, this being the last time when the deceased was seen alive.
“After the Appellant had spoken to Andrew Persaud, she (Appellant) left the yard. Shortly after a child spoke to Andrew Persaud. AS a result of this he went to the building, the upper flat, that is, where Gassonette lived. When he looked into the kitchen he saw what appeared to be blood stains on the floor. As a result of this, Andrew Persaud entered one of the bed rooms and found the deceased was lying apparently dead on the floor.
“The interior of the premises appeared to be ransacked and was in disorder.
“As I said ,the deceased appeared to be dead and that turned out to be the case because on the 30th October 1985 Dr. Leslie Mootoo performed a post mortem examination on the body of the deceased and found that there were several external injuries on that body, namely;
(1) A compound fracture on the left aspect of the skull over the frontal bone.
(2) A lacerated wound on the left ear; 1.5 cm long.
(3) Multiple abrasions on the left side of the neck.
(4) An abrasion behind right ear, and
(5) A contusion over the chest.

“As far as the head and neck were concerned there were:
Scalp: laceration on the frontal area 4 ½ cn sub-scalpular haemorrhage over left fronto parietal area.
Skull: Fracture of the fronto parietal bones.
Brain: was lacerated and was haemorrhaging.
There was evidence of finger marks and contusions under the skin on the left side of the neck, as well as haemorrhages in the muscles of the left side of the neck.
Dr. Mootoo was of the opinion that cause of death was due to fracture of the skull, laceration of the brain and haemorrhage of it (brain),
“The evidence on which the prosecution relied to secure a conviction was that of Ramdeyal, whom the trial judge deemed an expert on finger print examination.
“On the 25th October 1985 he had examined the premises where the deceased lived, including the bedroom in which she was found , and in that bed room, on the surface of a dressing case , he found the impression of the part of a palm of a human being .
“In the course of their investigation, the police arrested the appellant; and a palm impression was taken from her by them. That impression was later compared by Sgt. Ramdeyal with that found by him at the scene of the crime and they were found to be identical.
“That was the only evidence which the prosecution led at the trial to show that the appellant was the person who had committed the offence. We feel that evidence was enough to establish a prima facie case against the Appellant.
“The only point considered at the hearing of the appeal was whether there was a misdirection by the learned trial judge as regards the manner in which the jury should treat the evidence of Sgt. Ramdeyal.
“In this case the only real evidence against the appellant, as I stated, is that of the palm print found at the scene of the crime. So it would seem to us that the direction which the learned trial judge gave to the jury viz, that they should not lightly disregard the opinion of the expert unless they had good reasons for so doing was a clear misdirection.
“As I said the only real evidence linking the appellant with the murder was the palm print. But against this was her vehement denial of having entered the building on the day of the murder. In these circumstances we do not think that it would be an appropriate case to apply the proviso as we cannot say that if the jury had been properly directed they would inevitably have arrived at the same verdict.”
“The end result of all this must be that this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside.”
Written By George Barclay