– Privy Council overturns ruling; finds him not guilty
IN 1957, five men were tried together on indictment for murder. The jury acquitted  all of the accused except Suruj Paul, the alleged mastermind whom they found guilty as being accessory before the fact to murder.
Suruj Paul appealed.  His conviction and death sentence were affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, constituted by Acting Chief Justice, Kenneth Stoby and Justices of Appeal, Messrs RH Luckhoo and Adrian Date.
In those days, the British Privy Council was the final court for British Guiana, resulting in the condemned murderer appealing to that court in the hope that he would escape the gallows.
His appeal was successful.  The Law Lords, including Lord Tucker, Lord Somervell of Harrow, and Lord Denning allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and sentence, and entered a verdict of not guilty in favour of Suruj Paul.
The case for the prosecution against the appellant, Suruj Paul, was to the effect that he arranged with the other accused for the commission of an armed robbery on persons carrying a payroll, a felony involving the use of violent means, if necessary, to achieve their ends, and that in the course of that crime, a policeman guarding the payroll was fatally shot by his assailants.
A verbal as well as a signed statement, alleged to have been made by the appellant to the police in the absence of the other accused (and therefore not admissible in evidence against the other accused), amounting to a confession by the appellant that he had arranged with the other accused  to rob the payroll, if needs be by violent means, were admitted in evidence at the trial.
On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, Barrister-at-law, Mr M Misir contended, on behalf of Suruj Paul, that he could not be found guilty as an accessory before the fact  to murder where the other persons charged as principals in the commission of the crime were themselves acquitted.
Solicitor General, Mr G M Farnum, for the respondent, contended that the acquittal of the other accused formed no bar to the conviction of the appellant  as accessory before the fact  to murder by those other accused, the jury being properly directed  to consider the case against each accused  person separately taking into consideration only the evidenced legally admissible  in respect of each accused.
The Court of Criminal Appeal held that under the provisions of Section 25  of the Criminal Law (Offences)  Ordinance, Chapter 10, the appellant alone could have been indicted with committing the substantive felony, and after his conviction, the principals could then have been indicted. If they were acquitted, the conviction of the accessory could not be impeached.  “It was in the circumstances of this case competent for the jury to have returned the verdict they did against the appellant,” the Court of Criminal Appeal ruled in dismissing the appeal by Suruj Paul.
The facts of the case disclosed that the appellant, Suruj Paul, was, along  with four other men — Nickram called ‘Chandie’, Kissoon called ‘Baljit’, Samaroo Karmaia called ‘Battle Boy’ and Ivan Jagolall — indicted of the murder of Claude Allen, a police constable.
At the end of the case for the prosecution, ‘Chandie’ was, on the direction of the trial judge, acquitted by the jury.  At the end of the case, the jury acquitted the remaining accused, except the appellant.
The evidence for the prosecution disclosed that on March 9, 1957, Walter Cameron, a field overseer of Rose Hall Estate, was proceeding to a place called New Dam in a Land Rover with the sum of $4, 400 for the payment of estate workers.
With Cameron in the Land Rover were the driver and Police Constable Allen, the latter acting as escort and armed with a pistol.   In attempting to cross a bridge, the driver brought his vehicle to a stop. Thereupon, two masked men, one armed with a stick and the other with a double-barrel shotgun came from a nearby cane-field shouting: “Hold up!”  The assailant with the stick went up to Cameron, who was sitting next to the driver. On seeing this, Cameron threw the money in the containers onto the ground.  The assailant with the shotgun went to the rear of the vehicle where Constable Allen was sitting.  Cameron then heard a shot, and turning toward the sound, found Allen lying in the back seat bleeding from the face.   Allen’s pistol was still in its holster.   Cameron then saw four masked men running away from the direction of the vehicle.
Allen, who was wounded in the left shoulder and the right side of his face, died later that day from shock and haemorrhage resulting from his wounds.
According to the Court of Criminal Appeal judgment, the case against the appellant centred in the main around the evidence of Desmond Dhajoo, a witness for the prosecution, and two statements, one verbal and the other written,  alleged to have been made by the appellant to the police.
Dhajoo testified that on Thursday, March 7, 1957, he went to the house of the accused named Jagolall.  In premises near to Jagolall’s, he saw the appellant (Suruj Paul) with certain articles of clothing and four masks.   The appellant told him that he must keep his mouth shut; that “they” were going to rob the New Dam payroll money.  He then saw the accused, ‘Baljit’ and ‘Battle Boy’ come up and the appellant told them that he (Dhajoo) was alright, and that they must not be afraid.   Baljit was then carrying a large bag, out of which he (Baljit) took three guns and showed them to the appellant, who examined them.
The appellant, ‘Baljit’ and ‘Battle Boy’ had drinks together, and the appellant showed ‘Baljit’ and ‘Battle Boy’ the articles of clothing which Dhajoo had earlier seen in the appellant’s possession.  The appellant then placed the clothing in a bag, while ‘Baljit’ placed the guns in that bag.   On the following day, March 8, 1957, Dhajoo said that he returned to Jagolall’s home, where he saw the appellant, and asked him what had happened.   The appellant told him that “they” had only hidden the guns, and that on the night “they” would travel to New Dam.   The appellant further told him that “they” had to leave early that night as “they” could not carry the guns in daylight.
Sub-Inspector of Police Charles, a witness for the prosecution, testified that on March 11, 1957, he was at the Albion Police Station carrying out investigations into the murder of PC Allen when the appellant was brought to him by other police officers.   He questioned the appellant and then confronted him with the accused, Jagolall.  He asked Jagolall, in the appellant’s presence and hearing, whether the appellant was the person named Suruj Paul he had told him about. Jagolall replied in the affirmative, and was taken away.
He then told the appellant that on March 9, at 1:15pm,  a policeman had been killed on New Dam; that the payroll had been robbed at No 50, Reliance, and that he suspected the appellant and others had committed the crime.
According to Inspector Charles, at this stage the Appellant said: “Ah suh dem she. All awe neck rass ah go bruk.  Bring pen and paper an’ write.  I will tell you de whole story.”
The appellant was cautioned and made a confession which was admitted in evidence by the trial judge, despite objection by the defence.
The Guiana Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, and affirmed  the conviction and death sentence.
Suruj Paul appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
In that Court’s findings allowing the appeal, and setting aside the conviction and sentence as affirmed by the Guiana Criminal Court of Appeal, their Lordships found it difficult to believe that in any event, the jury applied this process of reasoning in arriving at their verdict.  They considered it much more likely that the jury failed to appreciate the distinction between incitement to murder or conspiracy, and being an accessory before the fact.
The Privy Council concluded: “Whatever may have actuated the jury in coming to these inconsistent verdicts, their Lordships are satisfied, on an examination of the evidence, that there was no distinction with regard to the evidence relating to the commission of the substantive offence as between the appellant and the other accused which could justify the result arrived at.
“Their Lordships have accordingly humbly advised Her Majesty that this appeal may be allowed, the verdict against and sentence upon the appellant be quashed, and a verdict of not guilty entered.”