Advertisement 87
Advertisement 211
Advertisement 219

Police have brought a murder charge against a man in relation to the death of an 18-year-old youth, who died after falling over a cliff on Feb. 4.

Alexis Baptiste, a 35-year-old labourer of Owia/Chateaubleair was on Feb. 7 arrested and charged for the murder of Dillon John, a labourer of Campden Park, at Fanny Mountain on Feb. 4.

It was alleged that the deceased was chased and fell over a cliff. He succumbed to his injuries.

A post-mortem examination is expected to be performed.

Advertisement 271

2 replies on “Man charged with murder in connection with death of youth who fell over cliff”

  1. Being chased and falling over a cliff doesn’t make a murder. Chasing someone knowing they would jump over a cliff, or throwing someone over a cliff is.

    I just hope that the accused was not beaten into a confession by the police.

  2. Chasing over a cliff falls in to the category of the “escape cases” in considering whether the Defendant did the act or a new intervening act arose that negates murder.

    The leading authority is R v Roberts (1971) EWCA Crim 4. A young woman aged 21 accepted a lift from the defendant at a party to take her to another party. She had not met the man before and it was 3.00 am. The defendant drove in a different direction to where he told her he was taking her and then stopped in a remote place and started making sexual advances towards her. She refused his advances and he drove off at speed. He then started making further advances whilst driving and she jumped out of the moving car to escape him. She suffered from concussion and cuts and bruises. The defendant was convicted of actual bodily harm under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He appealed contending that he did not intend or foresee a risk of her suffering actual bodily harm from his actions and that he did not foresee the possibility of her jumping out of the car and therefore her actions amounted to a novus actus interveniens.


    There is no need to establish an intention or recklessness as to the level of force under s.47. It is sufficient to establish that the defendant had intention or was reckless as to the assault or battery.

    Where the victim’s actions were a natural result of the defendant’s actions it matters not whether the defendant could foresee the result. Only where the victim’s actions were so daft or unexpected that no reasonable man could have expected it would there be a break in the chain of causation.

    So in the instant case it is a matter of whether the deceased had to jump over a cliff in attempt to save his life, or he could have defended himself, or there was some other means of escape…..So the jury would have to decide if they would have jumped over the cliff as well…….

    This one looks a bit dicey for the prosecution.

Comments closed.