The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal has confirmed the sentences of two men convicted of using a firearm to put another man’s life in danger over seven years ago.

In May 2014, there was a shooting in Yellow Elder Gardens. People who witnessed the incident said they saw a blue Honda Civic pull up outside a house on Lightbourne Street before an armed man got out of the passenger side of the vehicle and fired several shots at Jaquan Rolle, who was standing outside the house.

Lavardo Forbes was singled out during an identification parade as the driver of the blue Honda, while Shirvon Stubbs was identified as the person who discharged a firearm in the direction of Mr Rolle.

The men were later charged, tried and convicted of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life and one count of damage after a 2008 Nissan Altima that was parked in the yard in which Mr Rolle was standing was damaged during the shooting.

They both appealed their convictions after arguing that the trial judge erred in law and in fact when she allowed the statements of Trevor Campbell and Mr Rolle to be admitted into evidence as they were more “prejudicial than probative”.

They further argued that the trial judge failed to give directions on a joint enterprise and that the learned judge failed to withdraw the case from the jury on the basis that the quality of the identification evidence was poor.

Forbes also appealed his sentence on the ground that he was not receiving the benefit of his remand time which the judge had reduced from his sentence.

After reserving their decision in June, Justices Maureen Crane-Scott, Roy Jones and Milton Evans denied Stubbs’ application for an extension time and affirmed his sentence and convictions.

The panel also affirmed Forbes’ conviction, but directed a Supreme Court registrar to correct his certificate of conviction to correctly reflect the sentence imposed on him at the end of his trial.

In their judgement delivered by Justice Jones, the panel noted the trial judge properly exercised her discretion when she admitted the evidence of Mr Campbell and Mr Rolle.

“Counsel for the intended appellants Forbes and Stubbs contends that the contents of the statements of Trevor Campbell and Jaquan Rolle unfairly prejudiced their client,” Justice Jones said.

“There was nothing wrong with the police investigators getting several statements from the witnesses and there was no suggestion from the evidence that the police compelled the witnesses to give statements.”

Justice Jones noted that the trial judge took the view that the inconsistencies between the statements of the witnesses were a “matter of credibility” to be determined by the jury after giving them appropriate directions.

“We are of the view that the trial judge properly exercised her discretion to admit the evidence of the absent witnesses, Trevor Campbell, and Jaquan Rolle, and adequately directed the jury on the caution required in considering their evidence,” he continued.

“The judge warned them of the risk involved in using that evidence and the special need for caution as they have not seen the witnesses in the witness box and that they should give it such weight as they deem fit.

“We see no error in the directions given by the trial judge and accordingly find that there is no merit on this issue in these grounds of appeal.”

Justice Jones said that for those reasons, the panel would deny the appellants’ applications and affirm their convictions and sentences.

“As it relates to the identification evidence, the judge took the view that the quality of the identification regarding both intended appellants Forbes and Stubbs was not deficient,” he said.

“He was of the view that the evidence involved eyewitness testimony, issues of credibility and were matters for the jury.

“Second, there was an identification at the identification parade of the (intended appellant Forbes) which supported Trevor Campbell’s visual identification. For these reasons, the judge was not in error in refusing to withdraw the case from the jury.”