The murder trial for the woman accused of killing Carmona “Calypso Farmer” Samuel began in the High Court today.
Elon Ketwaroo was charged with the capital offence days after Samuel was found dead at his home in September of 2017.
Police alleged the woman stabbed the 72-year-old in his chest during a domestic dispute.
Ketwaroo’s case was set today at a back-up trial behind Mikhail Gomes’ murder case.
Gomes is charged with the murder of his ex-girlfriend, Vincia James, who disappeared without a trace almost three years ago.
The New Winthorpes woman was last seen on surveillance camera leaving her Old Parham Road workplace, Dixie Betting Company, around 1:12 pm on April 7th, 2017.
The court went ahead with Ketwaroo’s trial after attorney, Lawrence Daniel, who represents both defendants, requested an adjournment for Gomes.
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
Vincia is still being missed. Was a quiet and pleasant person to work with. Hope the family finds closer.
DEFENCE OF SELF-DEFENCE
Except that which is known, that the Deceased was;
(a) …Allegedly stabbed to death;
(b) …By an Accused female whos has been indicted to ‘…stand trial before a Jury,’ the circumstances surrounding the instant Case are not fully known.
Even so, this may very well be a trial in which the ‘…Defence’ may adopt two approaches;
(i) …Make a Submission ‘…In Limine;’
Such is before trial starts, ‘…submit legal arguments to the Trial Judge (in the absence of the Jury)’ that the Accused should not be called upon to go on trial.
If not so sustained, trial continues.
At the end of the case for the Prosecution and the Court is satisfied that the Prosecution has successfully made out a ‘…Prima Facie Case (PFC),’ sufficient to engage the Jury, the Accused will then be called upon to go on her defence.
(ii) …The Defence Team may rely upon ‘…Self-Defence.’
The Defence has three options from which one will be to chosen;
(a) …The Accused may take the Stand and give evidence on Oath, and may be ‘…Crossed Examined’ by the Prosecution;’
(b) …May make an unsworn statement from the Dock; or
(c) … May opt to remain silent.
Given the apparent ‘…serious nature of the indictment,’ this third option seems very much unlikely.
Though not compellable, whether ‘…testifying on Oath’ or making an unsworn statement,’ why would an Accused person not advised to tell the Jury what had transpired that brought about the tragic killing?
If the option is ‘…Self-Defence,’ the Accused, after giving her version of the unfolding events, is expected to say that she;
(a) …Apprehended fear of being in danger of being attack by the Deceased;
(b) …Was in fact attacked by him;
(c) …Was in imminent danger of being injured or killed.’
In the heat of excitement, she would have ‘…one of two options’ in repelling the attack;
(i) …Using non-deadly force; or
(ii) …Using deadly force against the Deceased.’
The Accused may also ‘…testify or state’ that in the circumstances or as the situation dictated at the time,
she believed that the force used was;
(a) …Reasonable;
(b) …Necessary; and
(c) …Proportionate to that which the Deceased had dealt her.’
The Accused is entitled to speak to these.
However, it is for the Jury to consider and determine if that which the Accused said she had experienced at the hands of the Deceased, was really so.
From research, do know that a Judge Palmer (using his words), expects that ‘…in unexpected anguish’ [Palmer v Regina: 1971: AC 814], something untoward may happen.’
He however, cautioned that ‘…reasonableness of the use of force’ is a determination to be made by the Jury.
Also know what the Constitutions states.
This is for the sole knowledge and benefit of ‘…Duncy Bat.’
For ‘…Ras Smood’ too, just in case that ‘Bat’ and that ‘…Rock Head, one, interfere with his ‘…Locks and Ganja.’
This is what it states;
‘…A person shall not be regarded as having been deprived of his life …if he dies as the result of the use, …to such extent; and …such circumstances are permitted by law, of …such force as is reasonable justifiable’ [CO: 1981: Section 4].
For the purposes of the ‘…Use of Force,’ this is also what the Section stipulates;
(a) …For the defence of ‘ANY’ person from violence; and
(b) …For the defence of property’ [Sub-section 2].
So let the ‘…Bat and Rock Head,’ interfere with ‘…Ras Smood’s Ganja and make ‘…Sugar Cakes’ with it or tried to cut off his locks.’
If what he has exceeds the amount of ‘…15 Grammes and 4 Plants’ (his property), though the excess would be considered ‘…Unlawful Possession of Ganja,’ sure like hell that ‘…I n I’ may commit a felony in defending it.
He will be charged with murder though.
At trial, he may raise the a defence of ‘…Self-Defence’ and impress upon the Jury that they came to rob him of some darn thing, whatever.
If he was not ‘…defending his life,’ not sure a Jury may allow him to walk away freely.
So he better say he ‘…reasonably believed that they were going to kill him,’ and not coming to steal his Ganja to make ‘…Ganja Sugar Cakes.’ No Sah.
Killing two men for stealing Ganja? Too much force.
Will most certainly, be found guilty.
Comments are closed.