-despite their claims of innocence
IN 1967 the Guyana Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions and sentences of  Appellants  robbery accused Carlton Adams and James Lawrence despite allegations that the trial judge erred by not putting the alibi defence to the jury. Dismissing the appeal and affirming the conviction and sentence, the Guyana Court of Appeal, constituted by Chancellor of the Judiciary Mr. Kenneth Stoby  and Justices of Appeal Mr. Percival Cummings and Mr. Victor Crane held that:
“It is not necessary for the trial judge to give a special direction as he must in respect  to certain other defences  such as provocation, self-defence and drunkenness, etc.”
The facts of the case disclosed that one man was robbed by one of the appellants as he was about  to enter a shop.   Two constables, who were on duty in plain clothes at a nearby corner, were attracted by shouts of “thief” and saw when one of the appellants joined the other one , who had a bicycle,  and the two of them rode away.
The two constables  gave chase and subsequently apprehended the appellants who, at their trial, gave sworn evidence  testifying that they were somewhere else;  one said he was shopping,  whilst the other said he was making enquiries about work.
In his summing up, the trial judge directed the jury on the burden of proof  and on the standard of proof  but at no time  did he specifically  explain  that the defence was an alibi or give any specific  direction  regarding the alibis.
On appeal against conviction and sentence  the Appellate Court held (i)   an alibi, as such , is not a defence , and accordingly, there is no evidential burden  cast upon the accused ; (2) where an alibi has been set up, as here, then it is not necessary for the trial judge to give a special direction as he must where  certain defences  such as provocation, self-defence , drunkenness, etc. raised, once he makes it quite clear that the jury must be satisfied  beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence charged .  If  this is not done , then the accused is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt.
Mr. Desmond Christian represented the appellants, while Senior Crown Counsel, Mr.  W. G. Persaud appeared for the respondent.
Delivering the judgment  of  the Guyana Court of Appeal, Chancellor Stoby said, “This appeal,  which was admirably argued by Mr. Christian for the appellants, raises once again the question  of what is the proper direction to be given  to a jury when the accused’s answer to the charge is an alibi.
“The appellants were charged with robbery with violence .  A witness gave evidence  that as he was about to enter a shop  in Regent Street one of the accused attacked and robbed him.. This witness chased that accused  and saw him joined the other accused  who was waiting on a bicycle at  Rsgent and Alexander Streets.   The two accused rode away and were pursued  for a considerable distance by this witness.   Unknown to the participants  of this incident , two police constables  on duty  in plain clothes were standing at the corner of Alexander and Regent Streets,    Attracted by shouts of “Thief” they saw one of the accused join the other accused and saw them both ride away.   They followed on a motor cycle and caught up with them some distance from the starting point .  As the policemen approached the two accused,  the later abandoned their cycle and ran into a nearby yard .  The Police followed .
After a chase which involved entering into various yards and out on to various streets,  one accused was apprehended by one policeman at the corner of Light and North  Streets and the other  at Light and Robb Streets.   The policemen and the two accused were always within their vision and  the effect of their evidence  was that the men arrested , were. the men who were chased  from Alexander and Regent Streets.
Both accused gave sworn evidence.  One said that he had shopped that morning  at the material time with his mother  in the market.  After concluding his purchase  he walked to Light and North Streets, where he was arrested .
The other accused said  he was sent to Robb Street to do some work about  1:15pm.    He went there and made enquiries  at the first house between Light and Cummings Streets and was sent further down Robb Street.  While walking on Robb Street, he was arrested.
One accused called two witnesses to support his alibi.
According to the Chancellor,  in his summing-up the judge directed the jury on the burden of proof and the standard of proof, but at no time  did he specifically explain  that the defence  was an alibi or give a specific direction regarding a alibi.   He did, however, deal very fully with the defence  in language which will be  referred to hereafter.
He also said that counsel for the appellants in submitting  that the convictions should be quashed  for non-direction, amounting to misdirection , referred to R. v. Maraj (i), where it was contended that the trial judge erred in not giving to the jury the direction  that ought to be given  where a defence of alibi  is setup.
In delivering the judgment of the court, Chief Justice Gomes said (1961-1962), 4, W.I.R. 277, at p. 278):
“Where the defence of alibi is set up, the requirement for an adequate  direction to be given  by the judge to the jury  is of such an elementary  nature that it should not require  constant  repetition.   The fundamental principle is that before a jury can return a verdict  of guilty , they must feel sure that the prosecution has discharged the onus  of establishing the guilt of the accused.
“Where an alibi is set up as a defence, not only does that onus remain on the prosecution , but the trial judge is required to go  a step further and direct the jury that,  even if they reject or do not believe the defence  of alibi , they must nevertheless,  still consider  whether the prosecution has proved  all the ingredients of the charge  that must be established before they can convict.
“The main reason why  that further direction or reminder  is required to be given  is that  where an accused person gives evidence  on calls witnesses,  or does both of those things  in support of his alibi, the jury is confronted  with  two  diametrically opposed versions which are created by the presentation  of evidence, the truth or falsity  of which can be tested and be determined  by them.   In such an event, a jury, in the absence of the further direction, might think that if they reject the alibi,  they must  or can only  accept the version  put forward , by the prosecution.
“That situation, however does not arise where  no evidence in support of an alibi  is given by the defence  or otherwise  appears,  as is the case here,  and the trial judge was therefore not required to give to the jury the further direction mentioned above.”
According to the Chancellor, counsel for the appellant had argued that the appellant had not only given sworn evidence  of their alibis but had called witnesses  and consequently the case came equally within the rule laid down by GOMES, C. J.
After dismissing the  appeal and affirming the convictions and sentence  Chancellor  Stoby  said that while accepting that in certain circumstances a judge should follow the pattern  laid down by GOMES  C. J., he noted that the reason why in some cases a judge ought to give  a special direction  in respect of an alibi is  solely to make sure that the jury approach the consideration of a verdict  in the correct way.