Robber identified by means of gold tooth

IN 1975 a married couple were on a sight-seeing exhibition in the Le Repentir
Cemetery, when the wife was attacked and robbed of her wrist watch and gold finger ring by a gold-tooth robber.

Later, at a police identification parade, the gold-tooth robber was identified to be Vibert Hodge. He was subsequently arrested and charged, tried, convicted and was sentenced to prison.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the prisoner represented by lawyer Malcolm Taharally, appealed to the Guyana Court of appeal.

The State was represented by Mr. Nandram Kissoon, a Senior State Counsel (who later became a Justice of Appeal).

The appellant complained to the Appellate Court that since he was the only man on parade with gold teeth, he considered himself wrongly identified at an identification parade which was unfairly conducted.

The Appellate Court constituted by Chancellor J.O.F. Haynes, with Justices of Appeal, VIctor Crane and Keith Massiah, heard an appeal which lasted three days.

They allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence after finding that the identification parade at which the prisoner was identified was unfairly conducted.

The facts of the case disclosed that the appellant, armed with a knife, attacked and robbed one Violet Ramadan of a wrist watch and a finger ring. When removing the ring, he opened his mouth as if to bite her finger to get it off. It was then that she saw he was wearing gold tooth. Some five weeks later Ramadan identified the accused at an identification parade as the robber.

At the trial, there were three different versions as to how the appellant was identified at the parade. The first was given by Violet Ramadan who said she identified him initially by his appearance, but in order to make doubly sure, she asked him to open his mouth. The second was by Inspector Troyer who conducted the parade. Troyer said Ramadan asked him to cause the men on parade to open their mouths, and that when they did so , she then touched the accused on his shoulder .

The third version which was given by the accused was substantially the same as that given by Inspector Troyer, with this difference that whereas Troyer said that there were others with gold teeth, the accused insisted that he was the only man on parade with gold teeth, which meant he was urging that the parade was unfairly conducted, in that he was identified solely by his gold tooth.

The Appellate Court found that in his summing up, the trial judge did not bring to the jury’s attention the apparent conflict between Ramdan’s and Inspector Troyer’s evidence, nor the fact that Troyer’s evidence that the accused was identified after he had opened his mouth, tended to support the evidence of the accused.

The judge merely left it to the jury to find as a question of fact, if they were minded to believe Ramadan and Troyer, whether the identification parade had been properly conducted.

The accused also said in defence that the charge against him was a trumped-up one, that he had been “framed” by the police because he and the policeman who charged him had an altercation over a girlfriend, and that the policeman had threatened “to throw the book at him”. Nothing was said about this important aspect of the defence to the jury, the Appellate Court had found.

The Appellate Court held : (1) That the apparent conflict between Ramadan
and Troyer’s evidence should have been pointed out to the jury, which ought to have been advised to be cautious about accepting Ramdan’s testimony that she had primarily identified the accused apart from his gold teeth.

(2) The jury should have been told that if they accepted Troyer’s evidence then Ramadan’s identification at the parade was unsatisfactory, hence they should attach little weight to her identification in court.

(3) The jury should have been directed that, if they believed that the accused was the only man on parade with gold teeth, the parade would have been unfairly conducted and they should attach little weight to it.

(4) The defence was not properly left to the jury. The accused was alleging oppression and victimisation on the part of the police and the judge should have told the jury to acquit if they believe this was so.

(5) The trial judge was in error when he allowed the accused after conviction to plead to six other charges forming the subject of five outstanding indictable offences with a view to having them taken into consideration and to proceed to sentence him in respect of those charges.

(6) The correct procedure is, for the judge merely to ask the accused whether he admits his guilt on the outstanding offences. The accused must be sentenced only once, i.e., in respect of the offence for which he was tried and found guilty.The idea of taking other offences into consideration is merely to measure the appropriate sentence.
The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences.

Delivering the judgment of the Court, Justice of Appeal Mr. Keith Massiah had said “The appellant was indicted with and convicted of robbery under arms, contrary to section 222 © of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act Chapter 8:01. The allegation of the State was that while armed with a knife he had robbed one Violet Ramadan of a wristwatch and a ring. There was evidence that while she was in the Le Repentir Cemetery with her husband on March 30, 1975 , at about 4.15 p.m, the appellant went up to her, placed a knife to her chest, pulled her wristwatch from her left hand and opened his mouth as if to bite her finger to get off the ring . Ramadan told him not to bite her and in fear handed the ring to him.

“Five weeks later, on May 4, 1975, at an identification parade conducted at the Ruimveldt Police Station, Ramadan identified the appellant as the person who had taken her watch and ring. Counsel for the appellant contended in the court, as the appellant had complained in the court below, that the identification parade was unfairly conducted.

“At the trial three different versions were given as to how the appellant came; to be identified. Ramadan said that she identified the appellant and them asked him to open his mouth “to be doubly sure” and that “the gold teeth in (his) mouth made (her) doubly sure”. Inspector Hubert Troyer, who conducted the identification parade, said something different. He testified that Ramadan “looked at the parade and asked (him) to cause the men on the parade to open their mouths” and that when they did so, Ramadan “then touched the accused on his shoulder”. The appellant, in his statement from the dock, said that the men on parade were first asked to show their teeth and that he was the only man who had gold teeth. He was clearly saying that he was identified by his gold teeth.

“The sum total of Ramadan’s evidence on this issue is that she identified the appellant partly by his gold teeth, whereas Troyer’s evidence suggests that she identified him wholly by them. What must be noted, is that Troyer’s version was the same as the appellant’s, save that whereas the appellant claimed that he was the only person on the parade with gold teeth. Troyer said that there were others.

After citing a number of similar fact cases in which the Court of criminal appeal had allowed appeals and quashed the convictions, justice of Appeal Massiah, who later became Chancellor of the Judiciary, allowed the appeal quashed and set aside the conviction and sentence.

Chancellor Haynes and Justice of Appeal Crane concurred.