COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS - COURT OF APPEALS - CrApp.No 16 of 2006 - Judgment

Aug 20, 2026

Upload by Rowan

Appeal judgment of the Court of Appeals of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas concerning two linked criminal appeals arising from the same murder case. The appellants, Ernest Lockhart and Jeffrey Prosper, were convicted for the murder of Caxton Smith in 1999 and appealed conviction and sentence. The court describes procedural history, counsel assignment, and the development of the appeal, then sets out the evidence at trial focused on identification issues, witness accounts, and the medical finding regarding the fatal bullet wound trajectory.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages53

Reading Time2 h 14 min

AccessFree to download

Judgement

Procedural background of the two appeals

Background of the conviction and sentencing

Summary of the evidence led at trial

# COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMASIN THE COURT OF APPEALSCCrApp.No 16 of 2006 ERNEST LOCKHART Appellant V REGINA Respondent **************** SCCrApp.No 18 of 2006 JEFFREY PROSPER Appellant V REGINA Respondent ******************************** The Rt.Hon.Dame Sawyer,P. Before: The Hon.Mr.Justice Ganpatsingh,J.A.The Hon.Mr.Justice Osadebay,J.A. Appearances:(In No.16 of 2006)Mr.Murrio Ducille for ErnestLockhart on 10 October,and 16 November,2006,and 6 February,2007 Mr.Neil Brathwaite for the Respondent on 10October,2006,Ms.Sandradee Gardiner on 16November,2006,and Mr.Franklyn Williams forthe Respondent on 6 February,2007 (In No.18 of 2006):the appellant,pro se on 10October,2006,Mr.Wayne Munroe on 16November,2006 and 6 February,2007. Mr.Neil Brathwaite for the Respondent on 10October,2006;Mr.Franklyn Williams on 6February,2007 14th October,2008 Date: ************************* ## JUD G MENT 1. We heard these two appeals together as they arise out of thesame case. 2. On 10 October,2006,when this matter first came on forhearing,Jeffrey Prosper was present but was not represented bycounsel.In view of the seriousness of the matter,the Registrar ofthis court was instructed to assign counsel to him.The matter wasthen adjourned to 16 November,2006.On that date,Mr.WayneMunroe appeared for Jeffrey Prosper but he had just received therecord of the case which was complete except for a few missing 3 pages.The matter was therefore again adjourned to 6 February,2007. ## Background: 3. On 26 June,2006,Ernest Lockhart and Jeffrey Prosper("Lockhart"and“Prosper”)were convicted of the murder of CaxtonSmith("the deceased")which took place on 8 June,1999.On 24July,2006,following a sentencing hearing,Lockhart was sentencedto "suffer death in the manner provided by law"under section 2 of theCapital Punishment Procedure Act(Ch.94)and Prosper wassentenced to 20 years'imprisonment.Both Lockhart and Prosperappealed to this court against conviction and sentence. 4. After counsel was assigned to Prosper,he abandoned hisappeal against sentence and as there was no appeal against theleniency of that sentence by the Crown,the appeal against thesentence of 20 years was dismissed and we made no further order asthere was then no extant appeal against that sentence by the Crown. ## Summary of the Evidence led in the trial: 5. On 8 June,1999,between 8 and 9 p.m.,at Fowler Street,in thearea of a pink two-storey apartment building and a number of one-storey buildings,the deceased was shot in the back and died shortlyafter. 6. There was no dispute at the trial that the deceased wasmurdered.The oniy issue was one of identification of the person orpersons who killed him. 7. Although The Bahamas at that time was on Eastern Daylighttime (which is one hour ahead of Eastern Standard time),by 9p.m.,daylight would have been almost gone and it would have been verynear dark.In the area where the shooting took place,there were anumber of large trees as well as abandoned cars.The existence ofthe trees,as well as houses in the area made the issue of visualidentification pivotal for the prosecution's case.The issue of voiceidentification also arose in the case as well as circumstantialevidence since none of the witnesses for the prosecution gave anyevidence that he or she had seen the person who pulled the trigger ofthe gun at the time when the deceased was shot 8. The neighbourhood in which the shooting occurred wasdescribed by some of the witnesses who lived in the vicinity as a "warzone"and other similar epithets because,they said,it was notunusual to hear gun shots going off in that area and there were unlittrack roads running between Fowler and Quakoo Streets in particular. 9. According to Dr.Kumar's report (read into evidence by Dr.Rajuunder section 120(3)of the Criminal Procedure Code Act(Ch.91)(“CPC”))the cause of death was a bullet wound which entered fromthe back and lodged in the neck having an upwar

FAQs

Why were the two appeals heard together?

The court heard the two appeals together because they arose out of the same case.

What happened regarding Jeffrey Prosper’s appeal after counsel was assigned?

After counsel was assigned to Prosper, he abandoned his appeal against sentence, and with no Crown appeal regarding leniency, the sentence appeal was dismissed.

What was the central issue at trial?

The deceased’s murder was not disputed; the only issue was identification of the persons who killed him.

Aug 20, 2026

Upload by Rowan