A man who had challenged his conviction for building-breaking and larceny had his hopes dashed as the Court of Appeal upheld the verdict of the lower court yesterday.
Using the doctrine of recent possession, Jerome Henry and his attorney, Sherfield Bowen, were hoping to get the conviction quashed on the grounds that the trial judge did not properly instruct the jury.
Henry was visibly disappointed as he shook his head in disbelief and slouched forward after he heard Justice Gertel Thom reject the argument put forward by his lawyer.
“In our view, the doctrine of recent possession, even if the goods were found in the possession of the appellant on the 9th and the goods were stolen between the 6th and 7th of November, it would make no difference in the operation of the doctrine of recent possession. The doctrine was clearly explained to the jury and we have no doubt they understood,” Justice Thom said.
Bowen’s argument was that Henry, who defended himself at trial, was detained two days after the items were stolen from a business place on Friars Hill Road and it would stand to reason that had he been arrested the same day of the crime, then Henry would have been the one who had broken into the building.
More in today’s Daily Observer.