The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Senior Reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal has quashed the 2017 attempted murder conviction of a juvenile who was sentenced to 35 years in prison, ruling the Supreme Court judge in the case was wrong to let the trial continue in the young man’s absence.

The court ruled that the young man must now be retried in the Supreme Court as soon as possible.

The appellant was arraigned as a minor on January 30, 2012 on the attempted murder charge. In his absence, he was convicted of the charge and sentenced on March 6, 2017.

The Court of Appeal said: “The learned judge even if she had decided to proceed in the absence of the appellant was required to consider whether doing so would lead to injustice. It is clear that no evidence was led by the Crown as to their efforts to contact or locate the appellant. There was an indication that the appellant may not have known about the court date. The issue was raised about confusion which from time to time occurred due to the fact that there was another inmate with the same name.

“It was also brought to the judge’s attention that the appellant who was on remand for the present charge was also serving time. However, when his sentence was completed he was released from prison without regard for the remand. The trial judge did not take reasonable steps to ascertain whether the appellant was actually informed of his trial date nor why he was not present at the commencement of the trial. She appeared to have operated on the assumption that the appellant was present in court in September, 2016 and was, therefore, aware of the trial date. That could hardly be sufficient. We could not say that in all the circumstances the appellant’s trial was properly and fairly disposed of in his absence.”

Justice Cheryl Grant-Thompson was the trial judge.

In appealing the Supreme Court’s ruling, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in allowing the trial to continue in his absence; that she erred in allowing the trial to continue in the absence of a parent or guardian as the appellant was charged as a juvenile; and she did not treat the proceedings like juvenile proceedings in accordance with the Child Protection Act.

The appellant further argued that: “The learned trial judge erred in fact and/or law when she proceeded to sentence the appellant in his absence. Consequently, the appellant was severely prejudiced as the court did not have the benefit of any probation report coupled with his inability to instruct his counsel on any mitigating factors. Additionally, the court was unable to assess remorse, if any, or any other considerations in his favour where rehabilitation of offenders are concerned, inter alia, and the sentence is excessive having regard to the appellant being charged as a juvenile and there being no regard for the time he had spent on remand since 2012 or the Child Protection Act.”