Thaddeus Williams (Appellant) v The King (Respondent) (Bahamas)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0026

Jurisdiction

Bahamas

Parties

Appellant(s)

Thaddeus Williams

Respondent(s)

The King

Issue

Did the trial judge wrongly admit evidence of (1) a confession and record of interview given by the appellant, (2) of a confrontation between the appellant and another prisoner?

Facts

The appellant was convicted of murder in relation to the shooting of Deshante Bain, who was shot and killed in the Bahamas on 10 February 2012. It is common ground that the Crown’s case against the appellant was based entirely on a confession statement and record of interview made to police officers whilst he was in custody, on 18 February 2012. It was also common ground between the parties that in an interview on 17 February 2012, the appellant had denied any involvement in the offences. At trial, the appellant objected to the admissibility of the confession statement and record of interview dated 18 February 2012. His objection was made on the basis that the record of interview and confession statement were obtained by physical abuse and therefore was not voluntarily given. He alleged that he had been beaten, bloodied, bruised and tazed by police officers for several hours between 17 February 2012 and 18 February 2012. The appellant was examined by a doctor (Dr Johnson) during the early hours of 19 February 2012. Dr Johnson produced a report, in which the only evidence supportive of a finding that the appellant had been beaten was that when he touched an area of the appellant’s chest, it was found to be tender. The appellant was examined by another doctor (Dr Reddy) on 22 February 2012. The only finding recorded by Dr Reddy was a healed abrasion to the back of the appellant’s left shoulder. Dr Johnson’s evidence at trial was that a healed abrasion is indicative of an abrasion some 7 to 14 days prior to it being inflicted or occurring. The prosecution filed evidence (the evidence of Superintendent Cash) alleging that there had been a confrontation between the appellant and another prisoner on 17 February 2012. There was no reflection of such a confrontation on the detention record. The appellant submitted that Superintendent Cash’s evidence about the confrontation should not be admitted, because it would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings. The trial judge held a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the record of interview, confession, and Superintendent Cash’s evidence of the confrontation. During the voir dire, the judge heard evidence from the police officers who investigated the matter, conducted the interview and took the confession statement. The judge also reviewed the medical evidence, and heard evidence from the appellant. Following the voir dire, the judge found that the statement and record of interview had not been obtained by oppression, and were admissible. The trial judge also refused to exercise her discretion to exclude Superintendent Cash’s evidence about the confrontation on 17 February 2012. The appellant was convicted and sentenced. He now appeals to the Board.

Date of issue

3 June 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top