NEVIS BETANCOURT v THE KING

Summary. On 27 July 2017, Jose Castellanos was shot inside a restaurant in Santa Elena Town, Cayo District. Nevis Betancourt (‘the appellant’) was subsequently indicted and tried for murder. He was convicted and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. The Court of Appeal of Belize dismissed the appellant’s appeal and affirmed his conviction for the offence of murder. The appellant appealed to the CCJ that the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge’s rejection of the defence of self-defence. The trial judge accepted the case for the prosecution, which was that the appellant entered a restaurant, shot the deceased twice before the deceased chopped him with a machete. The appellant continued shooting at the deceased who exited the restaurant and thereafter died. At trial, the appellant gave evidence that the deceased chopped him, unprovoked. He thereafter pulled his licensed firearm and shot the deceased in self-defence. The trial judge rejected this evidence as it was inconsistent with the rest of the evidence of eyewitnesses which was corroborated by forensic evidence. At the CCJ, the case turned mainly on the submission by the appellant that after rejecting the defendant’s evidence, the trial judge had a duty to apply the principles of self-defence to a third version of the incident which arose due to a response in cross-examination by one of the main prosecution witnesses. The appellant submitted that the third version of events arose out of one of the main witnesses’ reply to Counsel’s question in cross- examination. The appellant posited that the conviction was unsafe as the trial judge did not expressly extract this third version of the incident to determine whether self-defence arose. Barrow J found that prior to the witness’ single inconsistent response during cross- examination, there were five other times during examination in chief and cross- examination when the same witness would have given a consistent account of the sequence of events. In those five instances, the witness said that the deceased was shot first before he chopped the accused. Barrow J also found that the witness’ misstatement was corrected in re-examination. Given the effect of re-examination, the statement did not form part of the evidence, as such, there was no third version of events. Barrow J also reinforced that there was no obligation on the trial judge to single out the third version of events and express that she rejected it. Generally, a judge sitting alone is not under an obligation to expressly spell out every step of the reasoning. Anderson J in his concurring judgment emphasised a discrete reason for the dismissal of this appeal based on directions to be given by judges sitting in judge alone trials. Anderson J pointed out that the trial judge was not under an obligation to extract a third version of the incident and subject it to a discrete recount and analysis. A judge sitting alone has some leeway regarding directions and as such it is not necessary for a judge to direct himself or herself on every possible variation of the facts contrary to those found to be true. The appeal is dismissed, and the decision of the Court of Appeal of Belize upheld. Cases referred to: R v Betancourt (BZ HC, 1 April 2019); R v Thain [1985] NI 457; Salazar v R [2019] CCJ 15 (AJ) (BZ). Legislation referred to: Belize - Evidence Act, CAP 95, Indictable Procedure Act, CAP 96. JUDGMENT Barrow J (Rajnauth-Lee, Burgess, Jamadar JJ concurring) Concurring: Anderson J BARROW J: