Dill v R
| Jurisdiction | Bermuda |
| Judgment Date | 19 March 2012 |
| Date | 19 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Appeal 2010 No 1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Bermuda) |
In The Court of Appeal for Bermuda
Before: Zacca, P; Ward, JA; Baker, JA
Criminal Appeal 2010 No 1
Mr M Pettingill for the Appellant
Mr R Field and Mr C Mahoney for the Respondent
The following cases were referred to in the judgment:
R v Sang [1979] UKHL 3
R v Ali and HussainUNK (1965) 49 Cr App R 230
Dearing v RBDLR [1986] Bda LR 27
R v MurphyDNI [1965] NI 138
R v Bailey and SmithUNK (1993) 97 Cr App R 365
Murder - Appeal against conviction - Evidence - Entrapment
JUDGMENT of Ward, JA
1. On the 16th December 2009 the appellant was convicted of murder of two elderly gentlemen who lived simple lives in a shed close to the waters of a bay in St David's. They had retired for the night of Saturday 20th September 2008 one in a lounge chair, the other on the floor.
2. Early on the morning of Sunday 21st September 2008 they were rudely awakened by two thugs, who for no reason other than that they were looking for someone to kill and who found two helpless men who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, pounced on then and inflicted on them very serious injuries from which they soon died. It was a horrific act of sheer, senseless, sadistic brutality committed in a rustic area of Bermuda once known as the isles of rest.
3. To add insult to painful injury after the deceased Brangman had been stabbed four times, had his throat twice cut and his face smashed with stone causing multiple blunt impact facial and head injuries, his body was burnt beyond recognition.
4. The deceased Gilbert was stabbed thirteen times, jumped in the sea to escape his attacker and suffered a watery death. His body was found floating nearby the next morning after the convict, Dill, with cold cynicism had pronounced him dead.
5. After having extinguished two lives that were of great value to others as expressed in the anguished cries of the Victim Impact Statements, the convict, his associate and another man went to church in Somerset at the other end of the island later that morning. The convict's associate is yet to be put on trial.
6. The appellant, in his police interview, presented an unusual insight into a future assessment of his character in expressing the wish that he would not be regarded as a monster.
7. Notice of Appeal was filed on 6th January 2010. There are three Grounds of Appeal. The first is in relation to the admission into evidence of the recorded conversation between the appellant and Roger Eugene Lightbourne Senior on the night of 1st October 2008. The second is in relation to the admission into evidence of the tape recorded police interviews of the appellant conducted on the 1st and 2nd October 2008. Similar principles of law were argued under both heads.
8. Mr Pettingill, Counsel for the Appellant, submitted that the Court should be concerned about the circumstances in which the confessions of the appellant were obtained by the police. Particular objection was taken to the manner in which Lightbourne Senior, a man with an extensive criminal record was used by the Police at Hamilton Police Station when he was the principal suspect and had an interest in diverting attention from himself.
9. He suggested to the police that they should focus their attention on Darronte Dill who had been his house guest over the relevant period. His plan was that the police should place them in adjacent cells where the police had concealed themselves and listen to their conversation. The plan was accepted but, in addition, on the advice of Crown Counsel, the conversation was recorded. The result was that two police officers, DC Henry and DC Mathurin overheard the conversation between Lightbourne Senior and Dill and it was recorded unknown to the talkers. The police decided to go along with the plan in hope of catching both suspects in the same net. On the following day both of them were charged with murder and the charge against Lightbourne Senior was only dropped after a potential witness, Mr X, had been discredited.
10. Mr Pettingill argued that there was an element of entrapment in the investigative method adopted which conflicted with the principles of fairness embodied...
To continue reading
Request your trial