Calaney’s Case Goes Before the C.C.J.

Calaney Flowers

Calaney Flowers was acquitted of the murder of ex-boyfriend Lyndon Morrison in March 2017 after five years on remand at the Belize Central Prison.  Despite the acquittal, the former bank teller has been fighting to remain a free woman as the Director of Public Prosecutions continues to pursue an appeal of that initial decision which was handed down by retired Justice Troadio Gonzalez.  On August twenty-eighth, 2012, Flowers ran her vehicle into a motorcycle driven by Morrison on Freetown Road, killing him and severely injuring his girlfriend at the time.  Flowers was charged with murder and attempted murder in the wake of the deadly incident, but on March twenty-fourth, 2017, she was freed of those charges when the prosecution failed to prove that she intentionally caused Morrison’s death.  D.P.P. Cheryl-Lyn Vidal subsequently appealed the decision but the case was dismissed last October on the basis that the Court of Appeal has no authority to hear the matter.  Another appeal was later filed with the Caribbean Court of Justice where the matter was heard at length via teleconference this morning.  The main issue concerns the interpretation and interaction between section forty-nine of the Court of Appeal Act and section sixty-five ‘C’ of the Indictable Procedure Act.  Calaney Flowers is being represented by attorney Anthony Sylvestre, while D.P.P. Vidal appeared on behalf of the Crown.

Cheryl-Lyn Vidal, Director of Public Prosecutions

“Where a trial is conducted without a jury, the judge shall at the conclusion of the trial give a written judgment stating the reasons for the conviction or acquittal of accused person as the case may be at or as soon as reasonably practicable after the time of conviction or acquittal.  …The date of the judgment referred to in subsection one of this act shall be deemed to be the date for conviction or acquittal of the accused person.  It is this section that the Crown seeks to invoke in its application for leave to appeal the decision of the linear trial judge of acquitting based on the offense or murder.  At the hearing of the application for leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal declined jurisdiction.  During the course of the hearing it appeared that the basis of the refusal was that Section 65C (3) did not in fact give the crown a right of appeal.”

Anthony Sylvestre, Attorney for Calaney Flowers

“Your honor this case, this appeal really concerns the question of interpretation of a statute which seeks to overthrow a fundamental rule of common law in relation to acquittals and in using the phrase overthrowing of this common law principle I am indeed relying on Chief Justice Gibbs’ pronouncement as cited by the first president of this court, President De la Bastide.”