The High Court of Antigua and Barbuda has upheld a “No Case” submission in the matter of The King v. Samuel Livingstone, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case. 

As a result, Mr. Livingstone was discharged of the charge of shooting with intent, a serious offence under Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act, Cap. 300. 

The ruling was handed down on February 18, 2025, by Justice Tunde A Bakre, who found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was unreliable, contradictory, and insufficient to sustain a conviction. 

Case Background Samuel Livingstone was accused of shooting with intent at Geneal Francis on February 7, 2019, in Potters, Antigua. 

The prosecution alleged that Livingstone fired two shots at the complainant from outside his home. 

During the trial, the prosecution presented multiple witnesses, including the virtual complainant (VC), police officers, and forensic personnel. 

However, the case was riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, particularly in relation to: Discrepancies in the alleged date of the incident, with different witnesses stating three different dates. 

Contradictory accounts of where the accused allegedly fired the shots. Discrepancies in forensic evidence, including conflicting police testimony about where the alleged bullet was retrieved. 

At the close of the prosecution’s case, Mr. Andrew O’Kola, lead counsel for the defence, submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish a case fit for the jury’s consideration, relying on the landmark case of R v. Galbraith [1981] 2 All ER 1060. 

Statement from Defence Counsel Speaking on the Court’s ruling, Mr. Andrew O’Kola, barrister for the defence, stated: 

“Justice has prevailed today. This case was built on unreliable and inconsistent evidence, and it would have been a grave miscarriage of justice to ask the defendant to answer a case that simply did not exist. The Court correctly applied the legal principle that an accused person should not be called to defend allegations that lack a solid evidential foundation.”

He further emphasized: “The role of the prosecution is not to secure convictions at all costs but to present a credible case that meets the threshold of legal scrutiny. In this instance, the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence were not minor errors but fundamental contradictions that made the case untenable.”

Mr. O’Kola also commented on the importance of upholding fair trial rights and due process: “Every individual is entitled to a fair trial, and part of that fairness means ensuring that only strong, credible cases proceed beyond the prosecution stage. The principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is not a mere legal phrase—it is the foundation of justice.”

Court’s Findings In delivering his ruling, Justice Bakre concluded that: The prosecution’s case was too weak to sustain a conviction, as it was marred by contradictions and inconsistencies in witness testimony and forensic evidence.

The fundamental discrepancies in the dates of the alleged offence, the location of the bullet extraction, and witness accounts rendered the case unreliable.

Applying the principles from R v Galbraith, it was clear that no reasonable jury properly directed could convict on such tenuous evidence. As a result, the Court upheld the No Case Submission and discharged Mr. Livingstone.

A Victory for Justice With the ruling in his favour, Mr. Livingstone is now free of the charge. One takeaway for the decision is that cases should meet the requisite evidentiary threshold before proceeding to trial. “Justice is not just about securing convictions—it is about ensuring fairness at every stage of the process. This case serves as a reminder that weak and contradictory evidence cannot form the basis of a fair prosecution,” Mr. O’Kola stated.