Quin J
```html <table> <tr> <td>IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS</td> </tr> <tr> <td>CRIMINAL SIDE</td> </tr> <tr> <td>INDICTMENT NO：33/08</td> </tr> <tr> <td>THE QUEEN</td> </tr> <tr> <td>V</td> </tr> <tr> <td>KEITH BRIAN ORRETT</td> </tr> <tr> <td>BRIAN EMMANUEL BORDEN</td> </tr> <tr> <td>BJORN CONNERY EBANKS</td> </tr> <tr> <td>KEITH ROHAN MONTAQUE</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Appearances：</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Crown-</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Ms Trisha Hutchinson and Ms Candia</td> </tr> <tr> <td>James</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Defence Counsel-</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Mr. John Fox and Mr. James Stenning of</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Stenning & Associates for Keith Brian</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Orrett；</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Mr. Nick Hoffman instructed by Priestleys</td> </tr> <tr> <td>for Brian Emmanuel Borden；</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Mr. Nicholas Dixey of Mourant for Bjorn</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Connery Ebanks；</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Mr. Ben Tonner of Samson & McGrath for</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Keith Rohan Montaque</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Before：</td> </tr> <tr> <td>The Hon. Mr. Justice Charles Quin</td> </tr> <tr> <td>18th February 2010</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RULING ON SEVERANCE</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>Mon behalf of makes an ap</td> <td>39</td> <td>orden， invite</td> <td>to exercison</td> <td>Defend</td> <td>for Mr.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Ir. Hoffman f Brian Bordrsuant to Sec</td> <td>13 Criminal application pu</td> <td>1</td> <td>te Criminal e it</td> <td>by his client</td> <td>separate t</td> </tr> <tr> <td>18(3) of the Procedure enction</td> <td>38</td> <td>1893) of the Procedure</td> <td>the</td> <td>orde whent</td> <td>and orderial</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Keith Orrett.</td> <td>1</td> <td>reteret</td> <td>discreti a s</td> <td>， Brian</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Defend</td> </tr> </table> ``` ```latex \textbf{IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS} \\ \textbf{CRIMINAL SIDE} \\ \textbf{INDICTMENT NO：33/08} \\ \textbf{THE QUEEN} \\ \textbf{V} \\ \textbf{KEITH BRIAN ORRETT} \\ \textbf{BRIAN EMMANUEL BORDEN} \\ \textbf{BJORN CONNERY EBANKS} \\ \textbf{KEITH ROHAN MONTAQUE} \\ \textbf{Appearances：} \\ \textbf{Crown-} \\ \textbf{Ms Trisha Hutchinson and Ms Candia} \\ \textbf{James} \\ \textbf{Defence Counsel-} \\ \textbf{Mr. John Fox and Mr. James Stenning of} \\ \textbf{Stenning & Associates for Keith Brian} \\ \textbf{Orrett；} \\ \textbf{Mr. Nick Hoffman instructed by Priestleys} \\ \textbf{for Brian Emmanuel Borden；} \\ \textbf{Mr. Nicholas Dixey of Mourant for Bjorn} \\ \textbf{Connery Ebanks；} \\ \textbf{Mr. Ben Tonner of Samson & McGrath for} \\ \textbf{Keith Rohan Montaque} \\ \textbf{Before：} \\ \textbf{The Hon. Mr. Justice Charles Quin} \\ \textbf{18th February 2010} \\ \textbf{RULING ON SEVERANCE} \\ \textbf{1.} \\ \textbf{Mon behalf of makes an ap} \\ \textbf{Ir. Hoffman f Brian Bordrsuant to Sec} \\ \textbf{18(3) of the Procedure enction} \\ \textbf{Keith Orrett.} \\ \textbf{39} \\ \textbf{orden， invite} \\ \textbf{te Criminal e it} \\ \textbf{1893) of the Procedure} \\ \textbf{the} \\ \textbf{reteret} \\ \textbf{discreti a s} \\ \textbf{， Brian} \\ \textbf{Defend} \\ \textbf{Ruling on Severance. R v. Keith Orrett, Brian Borden, Bjorn Ebanks, Keith Montaque. Ind. 33/08. Coram: Quin} \\ \textbf{J. 19.2.2010} \\ \textbf{Page 1 of 9} ```
The Defendants are jointly charged with possession of unlicensed firearms, contrary to Section 15(1) and 15(5) of the Firearms Law. Mr. Borden is charged under Count II and the particulars of the offence on that count are that Keith Orrett, Brian Borden and Keith Montaque, between the 4th and 7th day of April 2008, at 4 Town Hall Courts, West Bay, Grand Cayman, had in their possession a firearm, namely a Remington Model H70 12-gauge shotgun, serial number A52367 not under, and in accordance with the terms of a Firearms Users Licence. Mr. Borden’s counsel argues that for Mr. Orrett, unlike for the other Defendants, the Crown will place a reliance on matters alleged to have been said by him to the police on his arrest and interview. Mr. Hoffman argues that this evidence cannot have any probative value against any other Defendant and is not admissible against Mr. Borden. Mr. Hoffman argues that such evidence, if adduced, is highly prejudicial to Mr. Borden, as it implicates him in the offence. Furthermore, Mr. Hoffman argues that Mr. Orrett should be tried separately because his defence implicates Mr. Borden by the anticipated introduction of the bad character of Mr. Borden which, again, is inadmissible. S. 118 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code states: ``` Where, before a trial upon indictment or at any stage of such trial, the court is of the opinion that the accused may be prejudiced or embarrassed in his defence by reason of being charged with more than one offence in the same indictment, or that for any reason it is desirable to direct that where there are two or more accused persons they should be tried separately, the court may order the separate trial of any count or counts in such indictment or the ``` I note that Mr Borden’s counsel is not submitting that there is a misjoinder, but for the sake of completeness, and for the record, Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code states: Ruling on Severance. R v. Keith Orrett, Brian Borden, Bjorn Ebanks, Keith Montaque. Ind. 33/08. Coram: Quin J. 19.2.2010 Page 2 of 9
```html <table> <tr> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>3</td> <td>4</td> <td>5</td> <td>6</td> <td>7</td> <td>8</td> <td>9</td> <td>10</td> <td>11</td> <td>12</td> <td>13</td> <td>14</td> <td>15</td> <td>16</td> <td>17</td> <td>18</td> <td>19</td> <td>20</td> <td>21</td> <td>22</td> <td>23</td> <td>24</td> <td>25</td> <td>26</td> <td>27</td> <td>28</td> <td>29</td> <td>30</td> <td>31</td> <td>32</td> <td>33</td> <td>34</td> <td>35</td> <td>36</td> <td>37</td> </tr> <tr> <td>“The following may be joined in one indictment and tried together (a) persons</td> <td>accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction;</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(b) persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment or of an</td> <td>attempt to commit such offence; (c) persons accused of different offences</td> </tr> <tr> <td>committed in the course of the same transaction; and (d) persons accused of</td> <td>different offences all of which are founded on the same facts or form, or are</td> </tr> <tr> <td>part of, a series of offences of the same or a similar character.”</td> </tr> <tr> <td>8.</td> <td>Mr. Hoffman submits that the evidence against Borden “primarily rests”, or, to put</td> </tr> <tr> <td>it another way, “effectively exclusively rests”, on the probity of the DNA evidence</td> </tr> <tr> <td>against Mr. Borden.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>9.</td> <td>Mr. Borden’s counsel argues that the evidence against Mr. Orrett is very prejudicial</td> </tr> <tr> <td>to Mr. Borden and it is inadmissible against Mr. Borden. This is an “it is not me it is</td> </tr> <tr> <td>him” defence.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>10.</td> <td>Furthermore, Mr. Hoffman submits that Orrett’s defence will likely to include an</td> </tr> <tr> <td>attack on Mr. Borden’s character, which is inadmissible evidence against Mr.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Borden.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>11.</td> <td>Mr. Borden’s counsel cites the well-known dicta of Justice Darling in R v. Gibbons</td> </tr> <tr> <td>and Proctor (1919) 13 Cr. App. R. 134 which states:</td> </tr> <tr> <td>“The discretion of a judge at the trial, whether the defendants jointly indicted</td> </tr> <tr> <td>should be tried separately must be judicially exercised.”</td> </tr> <tr> <td>12.</td> <td>Mr. Hoffman submits that the combined effect of Mr. Orrett’s likely evidence, i.e.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>duress, it’s-not-me-it’s-him, and the likely introduction of Mr. Borden’s bad</td> </tr> <tr> <td>character, means that the reality is, that any direction, however robustly given, must</td> </tr> <tr> <td>rf not having ct, or to put</td> <td>34</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the risk of the desired eay, would fa</td> <td>35</td> </tr> <tr> <td>36</td> <td>37</td> <td>Mr Hoffman submits that they are separate circumstances which bring this case into</td> </tr> <tr> <td>the R v. O’Boyle (1991) 92 Cr. App. R 202 category and the effect of the totality of</td> </tr> <tr> <td>the inadmissible evidence will be that Mr. Borden cannot have a fair trial.</td> </tr> </table> Ruling on Severance. R v. Keith Orrett, Brian Borden, Bjorn Ebanks, Keith Montaque. Ind. 33/08. Coram: Quin J. 19.2.2010 Page 3 of 9 ```
```markdown # Ruling on Severance: R v. Keith Orrett, Brian Borden, Bjorn Ebanks, Keith Montaque. Ind. 33/08. Coram: Quin J. 19.2.2010 ## Crown Case
In summary Mr. Hoffman says that these are exceptional circumstances which allow this Court to depart from the general rule that it is in the public interest to try co-defendants jointly charged on one offence, together.
Mr. Dixey adopts submissions in favour of Mr. Bjorn Ebanks for the same reasons, and likewise Mr. Tonner for Mr. Keith Montaque.
The Crown opposes Mr Hoffman’s application. The Crown submits that the discretion to allow joint trial is codified in Section 162 and in particular Section 162(d) which allows for a joint trial in matters founded on the same facts or form, or in matters which are part of a series of offences of the same or similar character.
The Crown submits that: a. The charge is one of joint possession; b. The accused Borden was present in number 4 Town Hall Courts at the time the offence was committed; c. The firearms which are the subject of the charges against the accused are the same; d. The police witnesses who would be required to give evidence against all the accused are the same; e. The ballistic expert evidence against the accused is the same; f. All documentary evidence, save and except for the statement and interview of Orrett, is the same.
Accordingly by implication the Crown submits that its case does not “rest on DNA evidence.”
The Crown also submits that there is sufficient evidence to support the joint trial of the accused. ```
```html <table> <tr> <td>1</td> <td>a. Mr. Borden's counsel can cross examine the witnesses and put his client's case which the jury will hear;</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2</td> <td>b. Mr. Borden's counsel will have the opportunity to address the jury on his client's case;</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3</td> <td>c. There can be clear directions from the judge to ensure that the jury disregards any inadmissible evidence against Borden to ensure that he has a fair trial.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>20.</td> <td>The Crown also cites from the same well known authorities. In particular they rely on the case of R v. Assim [1966] 2 Q.B. 247 and the judgment of the Court of Appeal as read by Sachs L.J. which was summarized by the Crown as follows:</td> </tr> <tr> <td>13</td> <td>a. Whether the matters which constitute the individual offences of the several offenders are, upon the available evidence, so related;</td> </tr> <tr> <td>14</td> <td>b. Whether in time or by other factors, that the interests of justice are best served by them being tried together;</td> </tr> <tr> <td>17</td> <td>c. If the answer to b. is yes then they can properly be the subject of counts in one indictment and can, subject to the discretion of the court, be tried together.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>21.</td> <td>The Crown submits that, bearing in mind the factors earlier outlined, it is submitted that there are sufficient factors to justify a single trial of all the accused, as they are all being tried for joint possession of the firearms recovered and the evidence against all is virtually the same.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>22.</td> <td>The Crown further submits that the overriding test is what would be in the interests of justice, and this will involve taking into consideration the issue of having the prosecution evidence given twice before different juries, and the added potential inconsistent ve</td> </tr> <tr> <td>29</td> <td>increase of indict s.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>32</td> <td>in R v. Grondkowski，R v. Malinowski [1946] K.B. 369：</td> </tr> <tr> <td>33</td> </tr> <tr> <td>34</td> </tr> </table> Ruling on Severance. R v. Keith Orrett，Brian Borden，Bjorn Ebanks，Keith Montaque. Ind. 33/08. Coram：Quin J. 19.2.2010 ```
```html <table> <tr> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>3</td> <td>4</td> <td>5</td> <td>6</td> </tr> <tr> <td>7</td> <td>24.</td> <td>Lord Goddard also considers the issue of one prisoner’s defence amounting to an</td> </tr> <tr> <td>8</td> <td>attack upon the other prisoner and states:</td> </tr> <tr> <td>9</td> </tr> <tr> <td>10</td> <td>11</td> <td>12</td> <td>13</td> <td>14</td> <td>15</td> <td>16</td> <td>17</td> <td>18</td> <td>19</td> <td>20</td> </tr> <tr> <td>21</td> <td>25.</td> <td>The Crown submits that there are many cases where we have cut throat defences,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>22</td> <td>which inevitably mean that the jury hears admissible evidence against one</td> </tr> <tr> <td>23</td> <td>defendant, but the same evidence is inadmissible against another defendant and</td> </tr> <tr> <td>24</td> <td>cites Rv. Joseph and Christie [1997] 165 Cr. App. R. 253 and Rv. Cairns, Zaidi</td> </tr> <tr> <td>25</td> <td>and Chaudhary [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 662.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>26</td> </tr> <tr> <td>27</td> <td>26.</td> <td>The Crown also relies on the classic dicta of the former Chief Justice Lord Widgery</td> </tr> <tr> <td>28</td> <td>in Rv. Lake [1977] 64 Cr. App. R. 172 in which he stated:</td> </tr> <tr> <td>29</td> </tr> <tr> <td>30</td> <td>31</td> <td>32</td> <td>33</td> <td>34</td> <td>35</td> <td>36</td> <td>37</td> <td>38</td> <td>39</td> <td>40</td> <td>41</td> <td>42</td> <td>43</td> <td>44</td> </tr> <tr> <td>45</td> <td>46</td> <td>47</td> <td>48</td> <td>49</td> <td>50</td> <td>51</td> <td>52</td> <td>53</td> <td>54</td> <td>55</td> <td>56</td> <td>57</td> <td>58</td> <td>59</td> <td>60</td> </tr> <tr> <td>61</td> <td>62</td> <td>63</td> <td>64</td> <td>65</td> <td>66</td> <td>67</td> <td>68</td> <td>69</td> <td>70</td> <td>71</td> <td>72</td> <td>73</td> <td>74</td> <td>75</td> <td>76</td> </tr> <tr> <td>77</td> <td>78</td> <td>79</td> <td>80</td> <td>81</td> <td>82</td> <td>83</td> <td>84</td> <td>85</td> <td>86</td> <td>87</td> <td>88</td> <td>89</td> <td>90</td> <td>91</td> <td>92</td> </tr> <tr> <td>93</td> <td>94</td> <td>95</td> <td>96</td> <td>97</td> <td>98</td> <td>99</td> <td>100</td> <td>101</td> <td>102</td> <td>103</td> <td>104</td> <td>105</td> <td>106</td> <td>107</td> <td>108</td> </tr> <tr> <td>109</td> <td>110</td> <td>111</td> <td>112</td> <td>113</td> <td>114</td> <td>115</td> <td>116</td> <td>117</td> <td>118</td> <td>119</td> <td>120</td> <td>121</td> <td>122</td> <td>123</td> <td>124</td> </tr> <tr> <td>125</td> <td>126</td> <td>127</td> <td>128</td> <td>129</td> <td>130</td> <td>131</td> <td>132</td> <td>133</td> <td>134</td> <td>135</td> <td>136</td> <td>137</td> <td>138</td> <td>139</td> <td>140</td> </tr> <tr> <td>141</td> <td>142</td> <td>143</td> <td>144</td> <td>145</td> <td>146</td> <td>147</td> <td>148</td> <td>149</td> <td>150</td> <td>151</td> <td>152</td> <td>153</td> <td>154</td> <td>155</td> <td>156</td> </tr> <tr> <td>157</td> <td>158</td> <td>159</td> <td>160</td> <td>161</td> <td>162</td> <td>163</td> <td>164</td> <td>165</td> <td>166</td> <td>167</td> <td>168</td> <td>169</td> <td>170</td> <td>171</td> <td>172</td> </tr> <tr> <td>173</td> <td>174</td> <td>175</td> <td>176</td> <td>177</td> <td>178</td> <td>179</td> <td>180</td> <td>181</td> <td>182</td> <td>183</td> <td>184</td> <td>185</td> <td>186</td> <td>187</td> <td>188</td> </tr> <tr> <td>189</td> <td>190</td> <td>191</td> <td>192</td> <td>193</td> <td>194</td> <td>195</td> <td>196</td> <td>197</td> <td>198</td> <td>199</td> <td>200</td> <td>201</td> <td>202</td> <td>203</td> <td>204</td> </tr> <tr> <td>205</td> <td>206</td> <td>207</td> <td>208</td> <td>209</td> <td>210</td> <td>211</td> <td>212</td> <td>213</td> <td>214</td> <td>215</td> <td>216</td> <td>217</td> <td>218</td> <td>219</td> <td>220</td> </tr> <tr> <td>221</td> <td>222</td> <td>223</td> <td>224</td> <td>225</td> <td>226</td> <td>227</td> <td>228</td> <td>229</td> <td>230</td> <td>231</td> <td>232</td> <td>233</td> <td>234</td> <td>235</td> <td>236</td> </tr> <tr> <td>237</td> <td>238</td> <td>239</td> <td>240</td> <td>241</td> <td>242</td> <td>243</td> <td>244</td> <td>245</td> <td>246</td> <td>247</td> <td>248</td> <td>249</td> <td>250</td> <td>251</td> <td>252</td> </tr> <tr> <td>253</td> <td>254</td> <td>255</td> <td>256</td> <td>257</td> <td>258</td> <td>259</td> <td>260</td> <td>261</td> <td>262</td> <td>263</td> <td>264</td> <td>265</td> <td>266</td> <td>267</td> <td>268</td> </tr> <tr> <td>269</td> <td>270</td> <td>271</td> <td>272</td> <td>273</td> <td>274</td> <td>275</td> <td>276</td> <td>277</td> <td>278</td> <td>279</td> <td>280</td> <td>281</td> <td>282</td> <td>283</td> <td>284</td> </tr> <tr> <td>285</td> <td>286</td> <td>287</td> <td>288</td> <td>289</td> <td>290</td> <td>291</td> <td>292</td> <td>293</td> <td>294</td> <td>295</td> <td>296</td> <td>297</td> <td>298</td> <td>299</td> <td>300</td> </tr> <tr> <td>301</td> <td>302</td> <td>303</td> <td>304</td> <td>305</td> <td>306</td> <td>307</td> <td>308</td> <td>309</td> <td>310</td> <td>311</td> <td>312</td> <td>313</td> <td>314</td> <td>315</td> <td>316</td> </tr> <tr> <td>317</td> <td>318</td> <td>319</td> <td>320</td> <td>321</td> <td>322</td> <td>323</td> <td>324</td> <td>325</td> <td>326</td> <td>327</td> <td>328</td> <td>329</td> <td>330</td> <td>331</td> <td>332</td> </tr> <tr> <td>333</td> <td>334</td> <td>335</td> <td>336</td> <td>337</td> <td>338</td> <td>339</td> <td>340</td> <td>341</td> <td>342</td> <td>343</td> <td>344</td> <td>345</td> <td>346</td> <td>347</td> <td>348</td> </tr> <tr> <td>349</td> <td>350</td> <td>351</td> <td>352</td> <td>353</td> <td>354</td> <td>355</td> <td>356</td> <td>357</td> <td>358</td> <td>359</td> <td>360</td> <td>361</td> <td>362</td> <td>363</td> <td>364</td> </tr> <tr> <td>365</td> <td>366</td> <td>367</td> <td>368</td> <td>369</td> <td>370</td> <td>371</td> <td>372</td> <td>373</td> <td>374</td> <td>375</td> <td>376</td> <td>377</td> <td>378</td> <td>379</td> <td>380</td> </tr> <tr> <td>381</td> <td>382</td> <td>383</td> <td>384</td> <td>385</td> <td>386</td> <td>387</td> <td>388</td> <td>389</td> <td>390</td> <td>391</td> <td>392</td> <td>393</td> <td>394</td> <td>395</td> <td>396</td> </tr> <tr> <td>397</td> <td>398</td> <td>399</td> <td>400</td> <td>401</td> <td>402</td> <td>403</td> <td>404</td> <td>405</td> <td>406</td> <td>407</td> <td>408</td> <td>409</td> <td>410</td> <td>411</td> <td>412</td> </tr> <tr> <td>413</td> <td>414</td> <td>415</td> <td>416</td> <td>417</td> <td>418</td> <td>419</td> <td>420</td> <td>421</td> <td>422</td> <td>423</td> <td>424</td> <td>425</td> <td>426</td> <td>427</td> <td>428</td> </tr> <tr> <td>429</td> <td>430</td> <td>431</td> <td>432</td> <td>433</td> <td>434</td> <td>435</td> <td>436</td> <td>437</td> <td>438</td> <td>439</td> <td>440</td> <td>441</td> <td>442</td> <td>443</td> <td>444</td> </tr> <tr> <td>445</td> <td>446</td> <td>447</td> <td>448</td> <td>449</td> <td>450</td> <td>451</td> <td>452</td> <td>453</td> <td>454</td> <td>455</td> <td>456</td> <td>457</td> <td>458</td> <td>459</td> <td>460</td> </tr> <tr> <td>461</td> <td>462</td> <td>463</td> <td>464</td> <td>465</td> <td>466</td> <td>467</td> <td>468</td> <td>469</td> <td>470</td> <td>471</td> <td>472</td> <td>473</td> <td>474</td> <td>475</td> <td>476</td> </tr> <tr> <td>477</td> <td>478</td> <td>479</td> <td>480</td> <td>481</td> <td>482</td> <td>483</td> <td>484</td> <td>485</td> <td>486</td> <td>487</td> <td>488</td> <td>489</td> <td>490</td> <td>491</td> <td>492</td> </tr> <tr> <td>493</td> <td>494</td> <td>495</td> <td>496</td> <td>497</td> <td>498</td> <td>499</td> <td>500</td> <td>501</td> <td>502</td> <td>503</td> <td>504</td> <td>505</td> <td>506</td> <td>507</td> <td>508</td> </tr> <tr> <td>509</td> <td>510</td> <td>511</td> <td>512</td> <td>513</td> <td>514</td> <td>515</td> <td>516</td> <td>517</td> <td>518</td> <td>519</td> <td>520</td> <td>521</td> <td>522</td> <td>523</td> <td>524</td> </tr> <tr> <td>525</td> <td>526</td> <td>527</td> <td>528</td> <td>529</td> <td>530</td> <td>531</td> <td>532</td> <td>533</td> <td>534</td> <td>535</td> <td>536</td> <td>537</td> <td>538</td> <td>539</td> <td>540</td> </tr> <tr> <td>541</td> <td>542</td> <td>543</td> <td>544</td> <td>545</td> <td>546</td> <td>547</td> <td>548</td> <td>549</td> <td>550</td> <td>551</td> <td>552</td> <td>553</td> <td>554</td> <td>555</td> <td>556</td> </tr> <tr> <td>557</td> <td>558</td> <td>559</td> <td>560</td> <td>561</td> <td>562</td> <td>563</td> <td>564</td> <td>565</td> <td>566</td> <td>567</td> <td>568</td> <td>569</td> <td>570</td> <td>571</td> <td>572</td> </tr> <tr> <td>573</td> <td>574</td> <td>575</td> <td>576</td> <td>577</td> <td>578</td> <td>579</td> <td>580</td> <td>581</td> <td>582</td> <td>583</td> <td>584</td> <td>585</td> <td>586</td> <td>587</td> <td>588</td> </tr> <tr> <td>589</td> <td>590</td> <td>591</td> <td>592</td> <td>593</td> <td>594</td> <td>595</td> <td>596</td> <td>597</td> <td>598</td> <td>599</td> <td>600</td> <td>601</td> <td>602</td> <td>603</td> <td>604</td> </tr> <tr> <td>605</td> <td>606</td> <td>607</td> <td>608</td> <td>609</td> <td>610</td> <td>611</td> <td>612</td> <td>613</td> <td>614</td> <td>615</td> <td>616</td> <td>617</td> <td>618</td> <td>619</td> <td>620</td> </tr> <tr> <td>621</td> <td>622</td> <td>623</td> <td>624</td> <td>625</td> <td>626</td> <td>627</td> <td>628</td> <td>629</td> <td>630</td> <td>631</td> <td>632</td> <td>633</td> <td>634</td> <td>635</td> <td>636</td> </tr> <tr> <td>637</td> <td>638</td> <td>639</td> <td>640</td> <td>641</td> <td>642</td> <td>643</td> <td>644</td> <td>645</td> <td>646</td> <td>647</td> <td>648</td> <td>649</td> <td>650</td> <td>651</td> <td>652</td> </tr> <tr> <td>653</td> <td>654</td> <td>655</td> <td>656</td> <td>657</td> <td>658</td> <td>659</td> <td>660</td> <td>661</td> <td>662</td> <td>663</td> <td>664</td> <td>665</td> <td>666</td> <td>667</td> <td>668</td> </tr> <tr> <td>669</td> <td>670</td> <td>671</td> <td>672</td> <td>673</td> <td>674</td> <td>675</td> <td>676</td> <td>677</td> <td>678</td> <td>679</td> <td>680</td> <td>681</td> <td>682</td> <td>683</td> <td>684</td> </tr> <tr> <td>685</td> <td>686</td> <td>687</td> <td>688</td> <td>689</td> <td>690</td> <td>691</td> <td>692</td> <td>693</td> <td>694</td> <td>695</td> <td>696</td> <td>697</td> <td>698</td> <td>699</td> <td>700</td> </tr> <tr> <td>701</td> <td>702</td> <td>703</td> <td>704</td> <td>705</td> <td>706</td> <td>707</td> <td>708</td> <td>709</td> <td>710</td> <td>711</td> <td>712</td> <td>713</td> <td>714</td> <td>715</td> <td>716</td> </tr> <tr> <td>717</td> <td>718</td> <td>719</td> <td>720</td> <td>721</td> <td>722</td> <td>723</td> <td>724</td> <td>725</td> <td>726</td> <td>727</td> <td>728</td> <td>729</td> <td>730</td> <td>731</td> <td>732</td> </tr> <tr> <td>733</td> <td>734</td> <td>735</td> <td>736</td> <td>737</td> <td>7
```html <table> <tr> <td>1</td> <td>27.</td> <td>The Crown submits that the facts in this case are not of the exceptional character</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2</td> <td>that was found in Rv. O'Boyle. The Crown submits this case is different from Rv.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3</td> <td>O'Boyle on the facts. In this regard the Crown relies heavily on the case of Rv.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4</td> <td>Eriemo [1995] 2 Cr. App. R. 206.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>6</td> <td>28.</td> <td>Indeed the English Court of Appeal stated that Rv. O'Boyle was wholly</td> </tr> <tr> <td>7</td> <td>exceptional, if not unique. Furthermore the Eriemo decision is some four years after</td> </tr> <tr> <td>8</td> <td>O'Boyle, and, it is quite clear that the Court in Eriemo reviewed the O'Boyle</td> </tr> <tr> <td>9</td> <td>judgment.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>10</td> </tr> <tr> <td>11</td> <td>29.</td> <td>In Eriemo the co-defendant's defence involved an attack on the character of the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>12</td> <td>appellant and also the co-defendant put forward a defence of duress. I quote Justice</td> </tr> <tr> <td>13</td> <td>Gidewell at page 211:</td> </tr> <tr> <td>14</td> </tr> <tr> <td>15</td> <td>16</td> <td>“When Carrington came to be tried, he duly put forward his defence of duress</td> </tr> <tr> <td>17</td> <td>and it succeeded and he was acquitted. His defence involved an attack on the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>18</td> <td>character of this applicant. Carrington gave evidence and was allowed to</td> </tr> <tr> <td>19</td> <td>go further than that. Quite properly the judge ruled that general evidence, such</td> </tr> <tr> <td>20</td> <td>as was suggested in Carrington's solicitor's notice, that this applicant was</td> </tr> <tr> <td>21</td> <td>terrorizing the people on the estate generally, that he had a propensity to</td> </tr> <tr> <td>22</td> <td>commit offences of violence in matters of that sort, the judge ruled was not</td> </tr> <tr> <td>23</td> <td>admissible, and not properly part of Carrington's defence.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>24</td> <td>Of course we appreciate that for the jury to hear this applicant's previous</td> </tr> <tr> <td>25</td> <td>convictions would make it much more likely that they would not believe any</td> </tr> <tr> <td>26</td> <td>protestations he had made, that he had not taken part in the particular burglary</td> </tr> <tr> <td>27</td> <td>with which he was charged together with Carrington, and it would make it</td> </tr> <tr> <td>28</td> <td>much more likely that they would believe Carrington. That of itself does not</td> </tr> <tr> <td>29</td> <td>make it so unfair that he should be tried together with Carrington that the judge</td> </tr> <tr> <td>30</td> <td>should have severed their trial. The normal rule, and this has frequently been</td> </tr> <tr> <td>31</td> <td>reiterated, is that where it is alleged that defendants are jointly guilty of the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>32</td> <td>same offence they should be tried together; (see the matter set out in paras 1-</td> </tr> <tr> <td>33</td> <td>167 and 1-168 of the current edition of Archbold 1994).</td> </tr> <tr> <td>34</td> <td>The fact that one defendant is intending to say that he has acted under duress</td> </tr> <tr> <td>35</td> <td>er defendant is not of itself a valid reason for severing the trial of the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>36</td> <td>defendants. me it sever</td> </tr> <tr> <td>37</td> <td>individual Indeed, the doctrine that</td> </tr> <tr> <td>38</td> <td>should be so that in the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>39</td> <td>but they an that all ners, 1 can be pe judant has a</td> </tr> <tr> <td>40</td> <td>of justice of catje whole mut ticular dea faroperly b</td> </tr> <tr> <td>41</td> <td>should be so demand. uthd that a fen which ean ary. The</td> </tr> <tr> <td>42</td> <td>interests o thourse deparrtial ma itn phefore the our trial.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>43</td> <td>in the circumstances of a particular case are elicited. For those reasons, had</td> </tr> <tr> <td>44</td> <td>we come to it, we would concluded in any case that the judge was certainly</td> </tr> <tr> <td>acting well within his discretion, in coming to the conclusion to which he did</td> </tr> <tr> <td>come, and we should have refused leave to appeal on that ground, if indeed we</td> </tr> <tr> <td>thought there was any valid right to appeal.”</td> </tr> </table> Ruling on Severance. Rv. Keith Orrett, Brian Borden, Bjorn Ebanks, Keith Montaque. Ind. 33/08. Coram: Quin J. 19.2.2010 Page 7 of 9 ```
```html <table> <tr> <td>1</td> <td>30.</td> <td>What is interesting is that the English Court of Appeal in the O'Boyle case stated,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2</td> <td>“The instant case was wholly exceptional， if not unique.”</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4</td> <td>This Court notes that the English Court of Appeal decision in Eriemo and Lord</td> </tr> <tr> <td>5</td> <td>Justice Glidewell's ruling was four years after O'Boyle and the Court of Appeal</td> </tr> <tr> <td>6</td> <td>clearly reviewed the O'Boyle decision and cited it.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>7</td> </tr> <tr> <td>8</td> <td>31.</td> <td>Accordingly， it is only in truly exceptional cases in which the Court should order</td> </tr> <tr> <td>9</td> <td>separate trials when two or more accused are jointly charged with participation in</td> </tr> <tr> <td>10</td> <td>one criminal offence.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>11</td> </tr> <tr> <td>12</td> <td>32.</td> <td>The question of the likelihood of a cut-throat defence， Orrett claiming that he acted</td> </tr> <tr> <td>13</td> <td>under duress and also raising possible inadmissible evidence regarding Mr.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>14</td> <td>Borden's character does not， in my view， mean that Mr. Borden cannot have a fair</td> </tr> <tr> <td>15</td> <td>trial.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>16</td> </tr> <tr> <td>17</td> <td>33.</td> <td>Mr. Borden is represented by an experienced criminal junior counsel who can</td> </tr> <tr> <td>18</td> <td>present his case and with strong and clear directions from the judge， can ensure that</td> </tr> <tr> <td>19</td> <td>he receives a fair trial. In that regard I should state that I am happy to welcome</td> </tr> <tr> <td>20</td> <td>suggestions from counsel as to directions when the time comes to address the jury.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>21</td> </tr> <tr> <td>22</td> <td>34.</td> <td>I have listened to the well-presented arguments of both Mr. Borden's counsel and</td> </tr> <tr> <td>23</td> <td>Mr. Ebanks' counsel， but on the facts as we know it， and on the submissions before</td> </tr> <tr> <td>24</td> <td>me， I cannot identify any features of this case which bring it into the high O'Boyle</td> </tr> <tr> <td>25</td> <td>threshold of truly exceptional circumstances.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>26</td> </tr> <tr> <td>27</td> </tr> <tr> <td>28</td> </tr> <tr> <td>31</td> </tr> <tr> <td>29</td> </tr> <tr> <td>30</td> </tr> <tr> <td>32</td> </tr> </table> Ruling on Severance. R v. Keith Orrett， Brian Borden， Bjorn Ebanks， Keith Montaque. Ind. 33/08. Coram： Quin 8 J. 19.2.2010 Page 8 of 9 ```
The facts appear to be that the Defendants were found in the same house as the guns were found and at the same time, and accordingly, in all the circumstances of this case I reject Mr. Borden’s application for severance. Dated this 19<sup>th</sup> day of February 2010 The Hon. Mr. Justice Charles Quin Judge of the Grand Court Ruling on Severance. R v. Keith Orrett, Brian Borden, Bjorn Ebanks, Keith Montaque. Ind. 33/08. Coram: Quin J. 19.2.2010 Page 9 of 9