The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder arising from a violent bank robbery.
During the investigation, police used a self-styled spiritualist and Obeah practitioner as an agent to elicit a confession from the appellant.
The appellant argued the resulting statement was inadmissible as the product of a 'dirty trick' and protected by religious privilege.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the relationship between the appellant and the spiritualist was a corrupt criminal relationship aimed at evading police, not a genuine religious confession.
The Court also dismissed grounds of appeal relating to the trial judge's jury instructions on expert evidence, challenge for cause, and co-conspirator utterances.
