Deon Watson v The King (The Bahamas) [2025] UKPC 55

[2025] UKPC 55JUDGMENT
Between
Deon WatsonAppellantFrom the Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of The Bahamasbefore Lord Reed Lord Hodge Lord Hamblen Lord Stephens Lady SimlerHearing JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 24 November 2025 Heard on 28 October 2025Appellant Dominic Lewis Christopher Jenkins (Instructed by Dechert LLP (London))Respondent Rowan Pennington-Benton (Instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (London))Date 2025-11-24
[1]Introduction Deon Antonio Watson (“the appellant”) was jointly charged with Hancel Rolle (“Mr Rolle”) on an indictment containing six counts relating to the robbery by two men armed with guns of Scotia Bank (“the bank”) on Stella Maris, The Bahamas, on 31 May 2012. The appellant and Mr Rolle were tried before Madam Justice Guillimina Archer-Minns (“the judge”) and a jury sitting in the Supreme Court at Nassau, The Bahamas. The trial commenced on 27 June 2016 and concluded on 4 August 2016. The jury returned the following unanimous verdicts in respect of the appellant and Mr Rolle: Count Charge Verdict on appellant Verdict on Mr Rolle 1. Armed robbery contrary to section 339(2) of the Penal Code, Chapter 84, of Anen Knowles Not Guilty Guilty 2. Armed robbery contrary to section 339(2) of the Penal Code, Chapter 84, of Nicola Pratt-Ierna Not Guilty Guilty 3. Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger the life of Margo John contrary to section 33 of the Firearms Act, Chapter 213 Guilty Not Guilty 4. Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger the life of Winifred Curry contrary to section 33 of the Firearms Act, Chapter 213 Guilty Not Guilty 5. Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger the life of Katheline Ritchie contrary to section 33 of the Firearms Act, Chapter 213 Guilty Guilty 6. Damage contrary to section 328(2) of the Penal Code, Chapter 84

Guilty

[2]The appellant appealed against his convictions on counts 3, 4, 5, and 6 to the Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas. He contended that the verdicts of the jury were inconsistent so that the guilty verdicts should be set aside. In a judgment dated 20 April 2020 (SCCrApp No 255 of 2016), the Court of Appeal (Isaacs JA with whom Crane-Scott and Evans JJA agreed) dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal held, at para 47, that to convict the appellant on counts 3-6 but not the offence of armed robbery in counts 1 and 2 raised “the spectre of an inconsistent verdict.” However, the Court of Appeal was not satisfied that it would be in any way unsafe to let the verdicts stand and in any event applied the proviso to section 13(1) of the Court of Appeal Act, determining that no miscarriage of justice had actually occurred.[3]The appellant now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council contending that on the evidence adduced at trial the appellant’s conviction on counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 was inconsistent with his acquittal on counts 1 and 2.[2]The evidence at trial, the prosecution case of joint venture, and the defence case (a). The sources of evidence against the appellant at trial[4]There were essentially two sources of evidence against the appellant at trial:(i) the oral evidence of the bank witnesses; and(ii) a statement bearing the appellant’s signature which had been written by a police officer and contained an account which was said to have been provided by the appellant to the police (“the caution statement”). The appellant accepted signing the caution statement but disavowed its contents and maintained that the statement had been procured using oppression.

(b) The prosecution case of joint venture

[5]The prosecution case at trial was that the appellant and Mr Rolle were acting together as part of a joint plan, so that, despite each of them playing a different part, they were both guilty on each of the counts. The Board observes that on the evidence it was open to the jury to proceed on that basis, but it was not bound to do so. It was a matter for the jury as to whether it was sure there was a joint venture. If the jury was not sure, then it was open to it to convict each defendant only for the things that the jury was sure each defendant personally did.

(c) The evidence of the bank officials

[6]It is appropriate to go into some detail in relation to the evidence of the bank witnesses to demonstrate that there was evidence before the jury on which it could convict the appellant on counts that the jury was sure that he personally did commit. Those counts in relation to the appellant are counts 3, 4, 5, and 6. Mr Rolle is not an appellant before the Board so the observations in relation to the verdicts in respect of Mr Rolle are purely made to demonstrate the approach taken by the jury as being to convict each defendant only for the offences that the jury was sure they each personally committed. Nothing which the Board says is binding in relation to Mr Rolle.[7]The bank witnesses described the actions of the two males: one a “tall, bright” male and the other a “short, dark” male. The prosecution case at trial, relying on the appellant’s caution statement and witnesses who identified Mr Rolle, was that the “tall, bright” male was the appellant, and the “short, dark” male was Mr Rolle.[8]The Board sets out a summary of the evidence of the bank witnesses demonstrating the extent to which the witnesses could implicate the appellant and Mr Rolle as having personally committed the offences on the indictment.[9]Anen Knowles stated that she first became aware of the incident after hearing shots fired. She described the actions of the shorter man as follows:(i) He pointed his gun at Ms Pratt-Ierna and demanded money.(ii) She gave him all that she had, and directed him towards Ms Knowles.(iii) Ms Knowles brought out all the cash in her drawer.(iv) He took all the cash which the two women had placed on the counter and placed it in a bag.[10]Ms Knowles described the actions of the taller man as follows:(i) He followed Ms John to the manager’s office, where she had closed and locked the door.(ii) He was “stomping or trying to get in and after that didn’t work he shot off to get in.”(iii) Ms John came out and he was behind her with the gun.(iv) They collected Ms Ritchie, the assistant manager, from her desk then all three of them went to the safe room.(v) While in the vicinity of the safe room, the taller man told Ms John and Ms Ritchie to “hurry up, and he was going to start counting to ten and if they didn't have it off in time somebody was going to die.”[11]Katheline Ritchie saw two men enter the bank. Each had a gun, and both demanded money. She heard a gunshot in the vicinity of the manager’s office. She was herself shot at through the glass partition. She described the actions of the taller man as follows:(i) He walked with Ms Ritchie and Ms John to the vault, holding his gun on them.(ii) Ms John and Ms Ritchie attempted to open the combination lock on the vault door, during which time the gun was pointed at them.(iii) The man said, “somebody’s going to get shot” and started counting to ten. Ms Ritchie was unable to open the safe because she was scared.[12]Winifred Curry was the branch manager. She was in her office when she heard what sounded like a gunshot. She thought it might have been a disgruntled customer. She got under her desk, pressed the panic button, and called the police from her mobile phone. She then went back under her desk and tried to watch what was going on out front using a monitor in her office. Ms John ran into the office, and they locked the door. Ms Curry then got back under her desk. Shortly after, she heard Ms John go out. Ms Curry heard Ms John calling for the assistant manager, Ms Ritchie, and realised she was calling her to go to the vault to get the money. Ms Curry remained under her desk, save for periodically holding her head up to look at the monitor. Shown photographs in court, Ms Curry was able to identify damage that had been caused to her office door from either kicking or a shot. She did not see a gun.[13]Nicola Pratt-Ierna was sitting at the desk of her supervisor, Ms Ritchie, when two masked men came into the bank, holding guns, shouting “money, money, money”. She described the actions of the shorter man as follows:(i) He shot at the camera. (The Board observes that this is evidence of Mr Rolle’s personal involvement in count 6).(ii) He pointed his gun in her face and demanded money. Ms Pratt-Ierna placed the cash that she had on the counter, and he took it. (The Board observes that this is evidence of Mr Rolle’s personal involvement in count 2).(iii) He shot at Ms Ritchie’s glass partition. She was behind the glass. (The Board observes that this is evidence of Mr Rolle’s personal involvement in count 5).(iv) At Ms Pratt-Ierna’s request, Anen Knowles took her money out of the drawer. The shorter man, who had his gun in Ms Pratt-Ierna’s face, took the money. (The Board observes that this is evidence of Mr Rolle’s personal involvement in count 1).[14]Ms Pratt-Ierna described the actions of the taller man as follows:(i) He kicked Ms Curry’s door open. (The Board observes that this is evidence of the appellant’s personal involvement in count 6).(ii) Ms John left the office, with the tall man holding a gun to her back.(iii) Ms John and Ms Ritchie walked to the vault.(iv) The tall man had his gun on them.(v) They were unable to open the vault. He said that he would count to ten, and said “Somebody better open this vault or they going to bleed today.” (The Board observes that this is evidence of the appellant’s personal involvement in counts 3 and 5).(vi) He was called to leave by the short man, grabbed a bag, and they both ran out (The Board observes that there was no evidence that the appellant obtained any money whilst in the safe room or that he personally obtained any money whilst in the bank).[15]Margo John saw two masked individuals enter the bank. She went to the office to let the manager, Ms Curry, know. A gunshot went off in the ceiling. Ms John could not see Ms Curry in her office but found her under her desk. She got up and told Ms John to quickly close the door.[16]Ms John described the actions of the taller man as follows:(i) He shot at the office door and “bust it open”. (The Board observes that this is evidence of the appellant’s personal involvement in counts 4 and 6).(ii) Ms John understood what she needed to do. She headed out, with the gunman pointing a gun at her back. She knew they wanted money.(iii) Ms John collected Ms Ritchie, who was in shock, and they went to the room where the safe was kept.(iv) They needed to “spin-off” the combination.(v) Ms Ritchie was nervous, so this was difficult for her.(vi) The man had his gun pointed at them and said that they were on a countdown. (The Board observes that this is evidence of the appellant’s personal involvement in counts 3 and 5).(vii) He stopped counting when the other man called him, and they left. (The Board observes that there was no evidence that the appellant obtained any money whilst in the safe room).

(d) A summary of the bank witnesses’ evidence

[17]The Board summarises the evidence of the bank witnesses as to the personal involvement of the appellant and Mr Rolle in each of the offences.[18]First, there was evidence that Mr Rolle was personally involved in the armed robberies of Ms Knowles and Ms Pratt-Ierna but there was no evidence of the appellant’s personal involvement in either of those offences. Therefore, absent the jury being sure that there was a joint venture, the appellant was not guilty on counts 1 and 2.[19]Secondly, there was evidence that the appellant was personally involved in the offences committed in the safe room of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger the life of Ms John and Ms Ritchie. On the basis that the jury was convicting the appellant of the offences which it was sure he personally committed the appellant was guilty of the offences in counts 3 and 5. There was no evidence that Mr Rolle was personally involved in the offences in the safe room so, absent the jury being sure that there was a joint venture, he was not guilty of the offence in count 3. However, there was evidence that he had fired a gun at Ms Ritchie at an earlier stage in the banking hall so based on the acceptance of that evidence he was guilty of the offence in count 5.[20]Thirdly, there was evidence that both the appellant and Mr Rolle personally had caused damage. There was evidence of the appellant personally causing damage to the door of the manager’s office and of Mr Rolle personally causing damage to a camera. So based on the acceptance of that evidence, each was guilty on count 6 but at a different location and at a different time.[21]Fourthly, there was evidence that the appellant personally shot at the door of Ms Curry’s office whilst she was inside her office. There was no evidence that Mr Rolle was personally involved in firing at that door. So, absent the jury being sure that there was a joint venture and based on the acceptance of that evidence, the appellant was guilty on count 4 and Mr Rolle was not guilty on that count.

(e) The caution statement

[22]The appellant was arrested on 2 June 2012 and was interviewed by police on 5 June 2012. During that interview, the appellant provided the caution statement.[23]At the outset of the trial, the appellant’s counsel invited the judge to conduct a voir dire in relation to the admissibility of the caution statement on the basis that the appellant had been beaten and forced to participate in the interview without legal representation. On 12 July 2016, the judge ruled that the appellant’s caution statement had been provided voluntarily and was therefore admissible.[24]In the appellant’s caution statement, he said that he was approached by Mr Rolle to go on “a mission”. He “asked him what kind of mission”. Mr Rolle said “it was easy and I must just come with him”. He was collected by Mr Rolle in a boat and provided with a shotgun containing one bullet. Mr Rolle also had a shotgun. The appellant said that he “was nervous, but [he] just went along with [Mr Rolle].”They arrived at the bank, and the appellant went inside first. The statement continued:
“I went in first. Hancel came in behind me. He shouted something then burst a shot in the ceiling. The woman run down the hall I ran behind her because she ran into an office and locked the door. I kicked the door open she said don’t kill me. I allow her to run back pass me. She ran back to where the manager was. So I followed her. Hancel then burst off another shot. I went behind the two women to a safe. It was a door before the safe. I stand by the door and held the door open. The manager who was the bigger woman was fumbling with the keys and could not get the safe open. A green short truck pull up to the door. Someone started to come out and Hancel shouted at them and fired off a shot. After that Hancel shout let’s go number two. I then pick up the black bag of the floor by the two woman. I throw it there for them to put the money in, but they did not get the safe open. We ran out of the bank across the road and in the bushes back to the boat.”
[25]In the caution statement the appellant also stated that while the two men were making their getaway, Mr Rolle gave the appellant around $1000 in cash.

(f) The defence case at trial

[26]The appellant and Mr Rolle each gave evidence. The appellant’s case was that he had not been in the bank on 31 May 2012 and had played no part in the robbery. He gave evidence to the effect that on that day he was working on the boat of Garth Thompson between 12.30 pm and 1.00 pm. He denied voluntarily making the confession statement and claimed that he had been assaulted by the police.[27]Mr Rolle’s case, similarly, was that he had not been in the bank on 31 May 2012 and had not participated in the robbery. He gave evidence that on 31 May 2012, he had been running a charter between Exuma and Long Island for the Long Island Regatta and had run approximately eight trips that day.[3]Legal principles[28]The parties to this appeal agree that the test to be applied when inconsistency between verdicts is advanced as a ground of appeal is the test formulated by Devlin J in R v Stone (unreported) 13 December, 1954 (“R v Stone”). At page 3 of the transcript in R v Stone Devlin J stated that:
“When an appellant seeks to persuade this court as his ground of appeal that the jury had returned a repugnant or inconsistent verdict, the burden is plainly upon him. He must satisfy the court that the two verdicts cannot stand together, meaning thereby that no reasonable jury who had applied their mind properly to the facts in the case could have arrived at the conclusion, and once one assumes that they are an unreasonable jury, or they could not have reasonably come to the conclusion, then the convictions cannot stand. But the burden is upon the defence to establish that.”
[29]The test in R v Stone was approved by Lord Parker CJ in R v Hunt [1968] 2 QB 433, at p 438E-F, formally adopted by Edmund Davies LJ in R v Durante [1972] 1 WLR 1612, at p 1617C and endorsed by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd CJ in R v Fanning [2016] EWCA Crim 550; [2016] 1 WLR 4175, at para 15. As Lord Thomas observed “[i]t is a test that is clear; it can be applied … without any further elaboration.” Furthermore, at para 22, Lord Thomas stated that in applying the test it is “unnecessary and inappropriate to compare the circumstances in one case with another.” Rather the “test … should simply be applied … without comparison to other cases.” The Board will apply that test.[4]Application of the test in R v Stone to the facts of this appeal[30]Mr Lewis, on behalf of the appellant, submitted that for the jury to have convicted the appellant they must have rejected his alibi defence, have been sure that the caution statement was made voluntarily, and have accepted the evidence of the bank witnesses. Thereafter, based on the caution statement and the events described by the bank witnesses of two armed men running together into the bank, the jury could only have proceeded on the basis that there was a joint venture between the appellant and Mr Rolle. Based on a joint venture, despite the appellant having no personal involvement in robbing Ms Knowles (count 1) or Ms Pratt-Ierna (count 2), the only rational outcome was for the jury to have convicted the appellant on those counts. In this way, the verdicts of not guilty on counts 1 and 2 cannot stand together with the verdicts of guilty on counts 3 to 6.[31]Mr Lewis also submitted that the appellant’s conviction on count 4 illustrated that “the verdicts cannot be explained by a rational examination of the evidence against the appellant on each count.” Mr Lewis submitted that the jury could not rationally have examined the evidence against the appellant on count 4 of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger the life of Ms Curry. It was submitted that as the offence required an intent to endanger the life of Ms Curry and absent any evidence that the appellant was aware that Ms Curry was in her office when he shot at the door, there was no proper evidential basis for a conviction on count 4. This is a new point raised for the first time before the Board, and it is well established that the Board will generally not allow a party to raise a new point on an appeal before it. The issue was raised before the Board not as a ground of appeal against the appellant’s conviction on count 4. Rather, it was raised as supporting the appellant’s contention that the verdicts cannot stand together.[32]Mr Pennington-Benton, in his comprehensive and careful written case on behalf of the Crown, submitted that the judge in his directions left the issue of joint venture to the jury as the judge was obliged to do. It was open to the jury to reject that aspect of the prosecution case. If the jury did so, then all the verdicts returned by the jury could stand together given that the jury only returned a guilty verdict if it was sure that the appellant personally committed the offence: see the summary at paras 17-21 above.[33]The Board rejects the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. The first submission is that the jury could only have proceeded on the basis that there was a joint venture between the appellant and Mr Rolle. The Board considers that this submission is tantamount to a submission that the judge ought to have withdrawn from the jury the issue of a joint venture. However, the judge was obliged to leave this issue to the jury. In doing so it is perfectly permissible for the judge to set out all the compelling evidence supporting the conclusion that there was a joint venture, but the decision remained a decision for the jury. The jury was entitled to and did reject that aspect of the prosecution case. Having done so the jury was entitled to rely on the appellant’s caution statement to establish his presence in the bank and to rely on the evidence of the bank witnesses to establish his own personal involvement in the commission of the offences in counts 3 to 6. The jury was also entitled to rely on the absence of any personal involvement by the appellant in the commission of the offences in counts 1 and 2. On this basis the jury verdicts of not guilty on counts 1 and 2 stand together with jury verdicts of guilty on counts 3 to 6.[34]The Board also rejects the appellant’s submissions in relation to count 4. The issue as to whether the offence on count 4 could be committed if the appellant did not know that Ms Curry was in her office at the time the shot was fired at the door was not an issue at trial, and it was not raised in any of the closing speeches or in the judge’s summing up. As no one at trial analysed count 4 in that way it cannot be suggested that the jury failed to rationally examine an issue which was not before it. Therefore, the jury’s approach to count 4 does not support the appellant’s case that the verdicts were inconsistent. Furthermore, if the issue had been raised at trial legal issues would have arisen as to whether it was an answer to this count that the appellant did not know that Ms Curry was in her office at the time.[35]In conclusion, there is no spectre of inconsistency between the verdicts. The appellant has not discharged the burden of establishing that the verdicts are inconsistent. The outcome of this appeal depends on the single issue as to whether the verdicts were inconsistent. They were not. The Board dismisses the appellant’s appeal.

The judge’s directions to the jury

[36]A further issue raised by the appellant was whether the judge’s directions in respect of the separate treatment of the counts were erroneous. The appellant accepts that the outcome of the appeal does not turn on the determination of this issue.[37]The judge directed the jury on the importance of considering each count separately on several occasions during the summing up. The appellant accepts that the directions were proper and necessary but contends that they were not sufficient. This issue was raised before the Court of Appeal. Isaacs JA stated, at para 38, that:
“The Judge ought to have directed the jury to consider the case against each defendant separately and to consider each offence separately but that to arrive at a verdict in respect of each offence their verdicts must be the same, namely if they were satisfied that the appellant was the taller bright coloured man armed with a shotgun in the bank that day, and they accepted the evidence of the bank’s employees, particularly Margo John and Katheline Ritchie, they could convict the appellant for the offences with which he was charged whether he was acting alone or in concert with another.” (Emphasis added).
[38]The Board respectfully disagrees with the direction suggested in para 38. The verdicts could only be the same “whether he was acting alone or in concert with another” if there was a joint venture. The direction, at para 38, presupposes that there was a joint venture. It would amount to a misdirection because the issue whether there was or was not a joint venture was an issue to be decided by the jury. The Board agrees that the jury could have been directed as to how to approach its verdicts if it found that there was a joint venture, but that is different from a direction which proceeds on the basis that there was a joint venture.

Conclusion

[39]The Board will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed.