IN 1960, murder accused  Jimmy Weeks was convicted  by jury by means of an alleged confession statement,  and was sentenced to death by the trial judge.

But on appeal  to the Federal Supreme Court in its Criminal Jurisdiction, it was  found that the confession statement  was used in circumstances that amounted to the acceptance of inadmissible evidence.
The Appellate Court, comprising at the time Justices of Appeal Rennie, Archer and Wylie, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, having based their argument  on the  question of a conflict between two police constables over a confession statement which was decided on a note, said to be made in the occurrence book by one of the constables,  but which evidence was described by the Federal Supreme Court as inadmissible.
The facts of the case would disclose that during Weeks’ trial for murder, two police constables had given evidence of a confession, said to have been made by the accused.
There was a conflict between the evidence  of the two constables and a note made in the Occurrence  Book by one of the constables was put in evidence  in  support  of his version of the confession.
The defence was at variance with the alleged confession, and as such, the Federal Supreme Court held that  the Occurrence Book was inadmissible in evidence.
Appeal allowed.  New trial ordered.
Jimmy Weeks had appealed  against conviction of murder by the Supreme Court of British Guiana.
Lawyer J.O.F. Haynes had appeared for the appellant while Solicitor General  W.G. Persaudr appeared for the Crown.
The judgment of the Federal Supreme Court was delivered by Justice of Appeal  Archer.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Archer  pointed out that the appellant  was convicted  of the murder  of Ismay Algoo.
The deceased came to her death from injuries received at her home  about 2.30 p.m. on August 20, 1959. The post mortem examination disclosed that death was due to laceration of her brain with haemorrhage following injury  to her head  and multiple other injuries.
The case for the Crown was that the appellant  had inflicted several incised wounds upon the deceased ‘s neck , face, arms and body with a razor while they were in her bed room  and had followed her  into the kitchen  and there dealt her a blow upon her head with an axe.
At the trial two eye witnesses  to the attack with the axe were put forward .They  were the deceased’s two sisters  who lived nearby  but there were no  eye witnesses  to the alleged attack with the razor.
The appellant  went to the police station  after the incident at the deceased’s house .   The police constable  in charge of the inquiries office  at the time gave evidence that the appellant had told him that he and his reputed wife , Betty Algoo,  had had domestic worries, that he had cut her with a razor, that he believed  she was dead, and that he was trying to cut his neck with a razor.
Another police constable  who was at the station when the appellant went there,  said that he was at the inquiries office when he heard the appellant speak to the inquiries officer  saying that he had just killed Betty Algoo, that he had a wound on the left side of his neck, that the inquiries officer asked him what was wrong with his neck, and that he said that he was trying to kill himself  because Betty Algoo had ruined his life.
According to Justice Archer,  the appellant,  in an unsworn statement  from the dock ,said that the deceased  had attacked him with a razor,  that a struggle had ensued  in the bed room, that she attempted to run into the kitchen , and that he tried to hold her back but that she fell and hit her head on the axe.
This statement, the judge said,  was at variance with his alleged admissions to the police  at the inquiries office  and the discrepancies  between the evidence of the two police constables  therefore became of some importance ,  particularly,  in view of the absence of any direct evidence  as  to what  had occurred in the bedroom.
The officer in charge of the inquiries office  said that he had made a note at the time in the Occurrence Book of what the appellant had said .   He produced the Occurrence Book  and it was admitted in evidence  without objection  by counsel  for the appellant , who, moreover,  cross-examined the officer  concerning  the entry  he said that he had made and addressed the jury upon it.
It has been submitted for the appellant that the Occurrence Book was inadmissible in evidence.   The judge commended the Occurrence Book  to the attention of the jury  and invited them to consider whether the version of the officer who made the entry  in the book  was more likely to be correct  than the version of the other police constable.  The Solicitor-General has contended that it was admissible  as a refutation  of a suggestion put in cross-examination  that no record of what the appellant had said had been made and also on the ground  that the entry had been made in the course of duty  and contemporaneously  with the report.,  He further submitted  that even if the evidence was inadmissible  the jury must inevitably  have arrived  at the same conclusion  if  it had not been admitted.
Justice Archer added, “We are clearly of the view that the Occurrence Book  was inadmissible  in evidence.    The judge should have excluded it and the  misapprehension  as to its admissibility  and the failure  of the appellant’s counsel to object to its admission  cannot be allowed to operate to the prejudice of the appellant.
“We feel unable  to say how the jury , unassisted by the Occurrence Book, would have regarded such conflict  as there was  between the evidence of the two police constables  or to what extent such conflict considered  in the light of the Appellant’s unsworn statement  might or might not have made a verdict of  not guilty of murder possible.
“We think that in the circumstances  the conviction  should not stand and the appeal is therefore allowed ,  the conviction and sentence  set aside and a new trial is ordered.”.