A conviction is unsafe if the trial judge fails to properly direct the jury on alibi evidence, the reliability of uncorroborated confessions from biased witnesses, and gaps in circumstantial evidence, especially when improper questions regarding the accused's bad character are permitted.

Sir John Beaumont.-

This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Court of Appeal at Jamaica, dated 6th January 1944, dismissing the appellant's appeal on his conviction before Watts J. and a jury at Sav-la-Mar on the Northern Circuit for the Parish of Westmoreland, Jamaica, on 26th November 1943, for the murder of Lamton Woolcock on 2nd September 1913.

The appellant was arraigned on indictment before Watts J. with the murder, on 2nd September 1943, of Lamton Woolcock in the Parish of Westmoreland. He pleaded "Not Guilty" and a jury of 12 men was sworn to try the case. The trial proceeded from 22nd to 26th November 1943, when the appellant was found guilty and convicted and sentenced to death. He appealed to the Court of Appeal in Jamaica, and on 6th January 1944, his appeal was dismissed without any reasons being given by the Court. At the conclusion of the argument, before this Board their Lordships announced that they would humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be allowed and the conviction quashed, and that they would state their reasons in writing at a later date. This they proceed to do.

According to the evidence of the widow of the murdered man, he left his house, in accordance with his usual custom, at about 3.30 p.m. on 2nd September to go to a piece of land called "Confusion" on which he grew cocoanuts and kept cattle, and which was rather less than half-a-mile from his house. The deceased usually returned to his home at about 5 P.M. and when he did not come on the day in question his wife went to look for him, and at about 5.45 P.M. she found his dead body lying on. "Confusion." from the wounds on the body, which included 7 incised wounds, it is obvious that the man had been brutally murdered. This evidence has been accepted by both parties and makes it clear that the murder must have been committed at some time between 3.45 P.M. and 5.45 P.M. on 2nd September.

There were found close to the body 2 machettes or cutlasses, one of which (Ex. 1) was stained with human blood and was identified as having belonged to the deceased. The other (ex. 4) was identified by a witness-Distin-who will be referred to more particularly later, as belonging to the accused. There were also found, on the next day, close to where the body lay, the husks of 26 cocoanuts of a kind similar to those grown by the deceased.

The principal witness for the Crown was one, Clifton Williams, aged about 21, apprenticed to a tailor at Sheffield, who stated that he saw the accused at about 7 P. M. on 1st September, when the accused asked him to sell 25 cocoanuts for him. For certain reasons the accused said he would not carry the cocoanuts to Sheffield Square where Williams worked, but would carry them to the Springvale crossroads, and the two men arranged to meet there about the same time the following evening. Williams said that on the next day, about 1 P.M., he saw the accused on a track leading from Springvale to Sheffield not very far from "Confusion," and that he was running with a machette in his hand. Later that evening, that is, on the day of the murder, Williams said that he went to the place where the accused and he were to meet at about 7 P. M. and found the accused in a, cemetery behind a tree. The accused told him he had brought the cocoanuts which proved to number 26 husked nuts. Williams put the cocoanuts into a basket, took them to Sheffield and sold them to Mrs. Alice Campbell for a sum of 3s. He returned with the money and handed it over to the accused who gave him 6d. and said to him, "I got in a trouble to fart, for I kill somebody." On being asked by the witness, "Who you kill man?" the accused said "Then you nuh hear?" to which the witness replied, "Oh, Lammie" meaning the deceased, of whose death he had heard earlier that evening. The witness then said that the appellant said that he was going to have the last time with Winnie, and made a threat as to what he would do if he heard anybody say anything or ask abo