Sangster & Anor v R (Jamaica)  UKPC 58 (6 November 2002)
Privy Council Appeal No. 8 of 2002
(1) Mark Sangster and
(2) Randall Dixon Appellants
The Queen Respondent
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF JAMAICA
REASONS FOR REPORT OF THE LORDS OF THE
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, OF THE
7th October 2002, Delivered the 6th November 2002
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
The Rt. Hon. Justice Gault
[Delivered by Lord Rodger of Earlsferry]
"So, what is the prosecution saying? The prosecution is saying this is a robbery and you will recall that the evidence is that four men ran from the building."
This direction clearly proceeded on the basis that the appellants had been two of the four men seen running from the building. Again, when dealing with identification, the judge said to the jury:
"Now, as we are on the question of identification, I must go on to tell you the importance of the identification parade. You will recall that parades were held and these two accused were identified by the two policemen. They were not identified by other civilian witnesses."
Since the civilian witnesses concerned included bank employees who would have been inside the bank, the trial judge was telling the jury that, in assessing the evidence of the two police officers identifying the appellants, they should bear in mind that other people, who would have had a chance to see them (inside the bank), did not identify them. This direction is also consistent only with a trial where the Crown case was that the appellants were among the robbers inside the bank.
"The recognition of the factors relevant to the particular case and the assessment of their relative importance are matters which call for the exercise of the collective sense of justice and common sense of the members of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica who are familiar, as their Lordships are not, with local conditions."