The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal yesterday quashed the 18-year sentence of a man who was accused of killing three people in 2011, after he argued the trial judge erred when he rejected the no case submission and allowed the case to go to the jury.

Shawn Knowles was accused of playing a role in the fatal shooting which claimed the lives of Edward Braynen, Erica Ward and Chackara Rahming on July 30, 2011. The victims were asleep in a one-bedroom apartment when an intruder, who the prosecution alleged to be Knowles, forced his way inside by blasting the locks with a shotgun. Once inside, he shot the eight-month pregnant woman in the head and Braynen in the back using a shotgun.

The Crown alleged Knowles’ co-accused, Timothy Saunders, was outside when the shooting took place. Saunders also appealed his 18 year conviction, but withdrew his application earlier this year after the Crown, which was also appealing his sentence, withdrew its appeal.

In 2016, the Knowles and Saunders were charged with three counts of manslaughter and sentenced to 18 years in prison. During the proceedings, Knowles was also charged with two counts of possession of an unlicensed firearm and one count of possession of ammunition.

When the manslaughter verdict was announced at the time, Knowles began wailing inside the prisoner’s dock behind his lawyer Ramona Farquharson-Seymour. He repeatedly cried out that he was falsely accused and even claimed the trial prosecutor hid evidence that would vindicate him and Saunders.

“I ain’t do this bey. I hope y’all could sleep at night,” Knowles shouted at the jury.

His lawyer tried to calm him, but was unsuccessful in her attempt as Knowles became louder.

“They had all kind of witnesses, the prosecution hide them off this case,” Knowles further alleged.

Senior Justice Isaacs told Knowles that the trial was not concluded as sentencing had yet to be passed.

“Y’all wrong,” Knowles said in response, still in tears.

In his appeal, Knowles argued the trial judge erred in rejecting the no case submission and permitting the case to go to the jury.

Yesterday, Justices Sir Michael Barnett, Roy Jones and Milton Evans overturned Knowles’ conviction after ruling the judge could not have accepted a verdict on the alternative offence of manslaughter since there was no verdict on the murder charge.

According to a judgement posted on the Crown’s website, no one witnessed the crime take place and the primary evidence against Knowles was the fact that he was found with the murder weapon the next day.

“There was evidence that one Serrano Adderley shot the appellant’s uncle and a friend of the uncle and attempted to kill the appellant about two weeks earlier,” the court documents read. “Erica Ward was a girlfriend of Serrano Adderley and was pregnant with his baby. Following the taking of evidence the jury returned with a verdict of 8 to 4 guilty on the charges of murder and a verdict of 8-4 guilty on the charges of manslaughter. The appellant was also found guilty of the firearms and ammunition offences, also on a verdict of 8-4”.

In his judgment, Sir Barnett said at the time of its deliberation, the jury were under the impression that it could consider a manslaughter verdict as well as a murder verdict. He said they were not concerned about the “technicalities” that defined a “proper verdict” and based on the direction they were given, must have believed they were entitled to consider the offence of manslaughter, since they were not “unanimous on a guilty verdict for murder”.

“The ‘verdict” of 8 to 4 guilty of murder is not a verdict,” he stated. “It is the law that a jury is not entitled to consider the alternative verdict of manslaughter unless and until it had arrived at a proper verdict of acquittal on the murder charge. As there was no verdict on the murder charge, the judge could not have accepted a verdict on the alternative offence of manslaughter”.

He added if the jury could not arrive at a “true verdict” on the murder charge, it should have been discharged and a new trial should have taken place. He also insisted the jury could not consider a manslaughter charge unless it had found the appellant not guilty of murder, which they did not do.

“A‘verdict’ of 8-4 guilty of murder is not a verdict” he explained. “A guilty verdict must be unanimous. A not guilty verdict of murder may be 8 to 4 but a verdict of 8 to 4 guilty of murder is not a verdict that can be accepted”.

He furthered: “No reasonable jury could without more be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the possession on the following day of one weapon from which bullets were fired at the scene of the murder meant that the person in possession of the gun was the person who committed the murder. It must be recalled that this was the evidence at the

close of the prosecution’s case. The judge himself acknowledged that it ‘doesn’t always follow that the person who has a murder weapon in his possession committed a crime with it’.

“…Manslaughter should never have been given to the jury as an alternative verdict in this case. With all due respect to the valiant efforts by counsel for the Crown it is our judgment that notwithstanding the gravity of the offence of murder this is not a case which it is proper to order a retrial”.

Citing another case, Sir Barnett said the evidence mentioned during the trial was not enough to justify a conviction by a reasonable jury even if they were “properly directed”. He said it was not in the “interests of justice” that the prosecution should be given “another chance to cure evidential deficiencies” in its case against Knowles.

As it relates to the firearm charges brought against the appellant, Sir Barnett stated: “In the circumstances the Attorney General had no power to prefer a voluntary bill in relation to them. “The Supreme Court therefore had no jurisdiction to hear those charges under the Firearms Act. In the result, the appeal against the convictions under the Firearm Act must be allowed and the convictions and sentences quashed. As the sentences have already been served, the issue of a retrial does not arise. The appeal by the appellant is allowed and the convictions and sentences quashed. The appeal by the Crown against sentence is dismissed”.