Leonard Ebanks v R

¶ Criminal Appeal 13 of 2018 – Leonard Ebanks – The Queen – Judgment

IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL
Criminal Appeal 013 of 2018
IND. 0084 OF 2010
SC# 08844
BETWEEN:
LEONARD EBANKS
Appellant
- and –
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
BEFORE:
Rt. Hon Sir John Goldring, President
Hon Sir Richard Field, Justice of Appeal
Hon Sir Michael Birt, Justice of Appeal
Date of Hearing:
7th September 2020
Appearances:
Mr. Keith Myers, Attorney for the Appellant
Ms. Candia James-Malcolm, Office of the DPP for the Respondent

¶ JUDGMENT
Transcript of oral judgment dated 7th September 2020 and Approved for Release 3rd February 2021

¶ Goldring, President
1.
This is the second case in which someone whose appeal against conviction failed, seeks to reopen
it. The wholly exceptional circumstances in which this might happen in the Cayman Islands was
considered by this Court in the case of Anglin 2018, 2 CILR 409. As will become apparent, this
application is wholly without merit.
2.
On the 30th September 2011, the Applicant was convicted of murder by the shooting of Tyrone
Burrell. A crucial witness in the case against him was Arlene White.
3.
On the 26th November 2012, the Court dismissed his appeal against conviction.

¶ Criminal Appeal 13 of 2018 – Leonard Ebanks – The Queen – Judgment

4.
On the 8th December 2014, he was convicted of being an accessory after the fact of the murder of
Frederic Bise. Arlene White was a crucial witness in that case as well.
5.
On the 3rd of March 2017 this Court dismissed his appeal in respect of that conviction.
6.
Mr. Myers of behalf of the Applicant, submits that in the second trial, there was adduced fresh
evidence which calls into question the safety of the conviction for murder in the first trial. That
evidence relates to the fact that the police were paying Arlene White sums of money and that, when
giving evidence on that topic before the magistrate at the committal hearing of the first trial, she
lied concerning the receipt of that money. Mr Myers submits that as Arlene White’s credibility was
crucial to the conviction for murder, the fact she told lies to the magistrate is of high significance
and justifies reopening the conviction for murder.
7.
The evidence about the payments was adduced at the first trial, as paragraphs 34 and 35 of the
Court of Appeal’s judgment make clear.
8.
That she was cross-examined at the first trial about her suggested lies to the magistrate, is also
clear, as the transcript of her cross-examination in that trial in terms sets out. While she did not
actually admit to lying, her inadequate response to cogent questioning by Leading Counsel made it
clear what the truth was. (See the undated transcript at tab 6 of the Prosecution Bundle) Her
admission of lying in the second trial in the circumstances, hardly throws a fresh light upon these
issues. It certainly does not found a basis for re-opening a previously concluded appeal.
9.
What this court said in Anglin (paragraphs 59-60) bears repetition:
“If, about which in light of our view of this case it is unnecessary finally to decide,
this court does have the residual jurisdiction to reopen a concluded appeal, we
should make it quite clear that it is a jurisdiction the exercise of which is bound to
be extremely rare. All the elements identified by Gross, L.J. would have to be
present. Even then, its exercise may well not be appropriate.
Finally, it does seem to us that any application should, as in England, normally be
dealt with by the court in writing.”
10.
In Anglin, the Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court Criminal Appeal in Jamaica in
the case of Grant (2018 JMCA) and paragraph 59 of that judgment. As it is put in paragraph 40 of
Anglin:

¶ Criminal Appeal 13 of 2018 – Leonard Ebanks – The Queen – Judgment

“The general principles to be gleaned from the cases are that…. [sic]… neither a
change in the law or fresh evidence by themselves will be sufficient for the
Appellate Court to reopen the case.”
11.
In our judgment, this case falls far short of the wholly exceptional circumstances in which a
conviction might be reopened. We refuse, in the circumstances, this application.