This case involved an incident that arose at an establishment in St Julian’s. Deguara, a 22-year-old man from Iklin, was accused of having caused grievous bodily harm to Lee Ross, without the intention to kill or put his life in manifest jeopardy.

The Court was asked to take proper action against the accused in accord-ance with Article 383 of the Criminal Code:

383. (1) The court may, where it deems it expedient, in order to provide for the safety of individuals or for the keeping of the public peace, in addition to, or in lieu of the punishment applicable to the offence, require the offender to enter into his own recognizance in a sum of money to be fixed by the court.

The facts of the case were as follows:

Lee Ross claimed that he attended a Christmas Eve party at the St Julian’s establishment. At around 1am he noticed that some people, who he later recognised as his friends, were arguing. Suddenly somebody bit his right ear. His friends later told him that it was the accused. The victim claimed that he had no idea what was going on, did not realise that it was his friends who were fighting and that he had not even seen the accused. He claimed that he merely saw a commotion and had gone to the scene out of curiosity. The victim emphasised that he had never seen the accused before that day.

The doctor who examined Ross took the witness stand and stated that the bottom part of the victim’s ear was missing. He classified such injuries as grave.

The accused claimed to have attended the party with two friends. He claimed that the argument started when he sat down on a sofa to rest his legs and somebody claimed that he had taken his place.

He claimed that the fight began and he ended up in a headlock. He further claimed that he had had no intention of hurting anyone. He denied biting Ross’ ear. At most, he claimed that he could possibly have pushed some people in an attempt to get out of the establishment quickly. He told the Court that he ran away from the scene and ended up hiding in a construction site because he was scared of the large group of people with whom he had been faced. He said he did not file a complaint with the police because he was so scared and at that point, all he could think of was going home.

The Court could not understand the fact that after the incident, the accused had called and sent text messages to the victim to apologise, when he later told the same Court that he had not done anything to the victim. The accused merely stated that he imagined that, on his way out, the victim could have been one of the people he pushed, so he decided to apologise to him.

The victim did not take the witness stand.

The Court considered the evidence put forward. It resulted that there was no single witness to the exact sequence of events that night. Nobody, not even the victim, actually saw the accused biting Ross’ ear. The text message that the accused sent to the victim was as follows: “Hi Lee, it is CJ, so you have number and my MSN, I gave you my e-mail address, if you need them. As I said, I am really sorry and can understand whatever you think is necessary. My life has been one hell of a bad trip lately with my father on the verge of dying and facing bankruptcy, the alcohol just amplified it all and I am sorry. You just happened to be there. Anything I can do, just tell me.”

The prosecution hence relied on this text message as proof of the accused admitting his actions. The Court then made reference to the Criminal Code, examining the concept of a confessional statement. According to Article 658,

Any confession made by the person charged or accused, whether in writing or orally, may be received in evidence against the person who made it, provided it appears that such confession was made voluntarily, and not extorted or obtained by means of threats or intimidation, or of any promise or suggestion of favour.

The Court noted that there was no doubt that the accused admitted to his actions spontaneously and voluntarily. He had later even admitted them in Court viva voce.

The Court made reference to several authors: The authors Cross and Williams in their book An Outline of the law of Evidence (1964) held that “A confession of guilt in a criminal case is only admissible if it was not made in consequence of a threat, or inducement of a temporal nature relating to the prosecution, made or held out by a person in authority over the prosecution. This is often summed up by saying that a confession must be ‘voluntary’. If it is not voluntary within the above definition, then it is altogether inadmissible.”

Archbold, in his book Criminal Pleading, Evidence & Practice (36th edition) stated that: “In order to be admissible, a confession must be free and voluntary, and unless it be shown affirmatively on the part of the prosecution, that it was made without the prisoner being induced to make it by any promise of favour, or by menaces, or induced terror, it shall not be received in evidence against him.”

The Court had to consider whether the accused was induced into confessing to his actions by some illegal means. However, the accused did not make any allegations of the sort. He merely stated that he had apologised in order to avoid worrying his father, who was sick. The Court did not deem this statement to be credible simply because at the time when the message was sent by the accused, the police were not yet involved and he was not yet a suspect. Had the accused not wanted to let his father know about the incident, he could have simply not told him. It was only because the accused actually admitted to biting the victim that proceedings were initiated against him. For these reasons, the accused had to be found guilty for his actions.

The Court took into consideration the fact that he was a first time offender and that he had admitted to his actions.

The Court found the accused guilty as charged and put him on probation for three years.