The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal has upheld the 30-year prison sentence of a man who was convicted of manslaughter and two counts of attempted murder after he was accused of opening fire in a local sports bar in 2015.

On January 24, 2015, a fight broke out at the G Spot Bar and Lounge shortly after 11pm. After the altercation, a gunman re-entered the establishment and fired shots inside the club. During the incident, three men sustained gunshot wounds. One of the victims eventually died.

Some time after the incident, Emmanuel Rolle was arrested and charged in connection with the matter. During his trial, Rolle was identified in the prisoner’s dock by a prosecution witness. He was then convicted of the offences and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment for manslaughter and 20 years imprisonment on each count of attempted murder. The three years the appellant spent on remand were deducted from the sentences.

Rolle appealed his conviction on the grounds that the judge made a mistake when she permitted the Crown’s witness to make a dock identification. He also argued that the trial judge erred when she failed to warn the jury about the “undesirability” of his dock identification by the witness, which he claimed ultimately led to a “miscarriage of justice”.

Nonetheless, in their ruling, Justices Maureen Crane-Scott, Roy Jones and Milton Evans dismissed Strachan’s appeal and affirmed his sentences after concluding that the trial judge was “not necessarily in error when she allowed the dock identification in the absence of an identification parade”.

In their judgment they stated: “Having regard to the nature of the evidence in this case, we take the view that a reasonable jury would have returned the same verdict if the trial judge gave the required directions to the jury on dock identification.

“In our view, this error did not diminish the strength of the identification evidence from the witnesses in this case. The evidence against the appellant was admissible and overwhelming and we take the view that this is a proper case for the application of the proviso to s.13(1) of the Court of Appeal Act. Accordingly, we dismiss the appellant’s appeal, and affirm the conviction and sentence in the court below.”