Justice Roxanne George upheld no-case submissions in the High Court yesterday in a manslaughter case where a father and son were on trial for killing a relative at Chinese Landing on the Barama River back in 2005, ruling that the case could not be sent to the jury.
But before releasing the men Justice George pointed out that drinking led to what happened and advised them to refrain from the practice. She spoke directly to the younger accused telling him that he has to change his behaviour.
Gordon Creame and his son Aubrey Creame walked out of the court beaming after thanking the judge. Both men were indicted on a joint manslaughter charge for killing Wilbert Daniels on November 1, 2005.
The prosecution led by state counsel Kara Duff-Yehudah had set out to prove that the younger Creame and his father inflicted injuries on the deceased that resulted in his death following a falling out on the day in question.
Evidence led in court revealed that Aubrey Creame and Daniels had a problem and Daniels reacted by hitting Creame. The men were part of a group that was drinking when the quarrel broke out. After Creame was hit he went home and told his father what had happened and the elder man confronted Daniels with a cutlass. He then struck Daniels with the cutlass. The quarrel appeared to have ended there.
Later that day, Daniels went to the Creames’ home and called out to them saying that his father had killed and that he “would do the same”. At the time he was armed with an arrow and bow. Daniels later took aim at Aubrey Creame and shot at him with an arrow. He then retaliated by hitting the accused in the head.
Defence counsel Vidyanand Persaud made no-case submissions at the close of the prosecution’s case pointing to the evidence that was before the court.
Justice George in upholding the submissions told the jury that the elder Creame was cleared after she had considered the evidence against him which did not amount to much.
She said he struck Daniels with a cutlass and according to the post-mortem report, Daniels died from a fractured skull.
The judge said the pathologist later testified that an object of some kind would have had to hit the deceased, adding that a cutlass cannot cause blunt trauma as was raised by the pathologist.
With respect the younger Creame, she said, his case was a bit more complicated but noted that he went home after the initial incident and was confronted there by Daniels. She asked what Creame could have done in such circumstances when Daniels was armed and also used threatening language about what his father had done.
