The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Senior Reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

THE Privy Council has ruled that the Supreme Court must decide whether a man who has been detained at the Sandilands Rehabilitation Centre since 1985 should be released.

Eric Stubbs was convicted of rape and housebreaking in 1984 and was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. He appealed the verdict and in 1985 the Court of Appeal changed the ruling to guilty, but mentally ill. The court ruled that he had to be kept at Sandilands until he received an order of discharge from the Governor General.

Last year, the Court of Appeal dismissed his application for leave to apply to the Privy Council on the basis that his confinement was unconstitutional and a breach of his rights.

Mr Stubbs’ lawyer, Sonia Timothy, said yesterday that the error in the case concerns the requirement that her client could only be released by an order of the Governor General.

“You’re sentencing someone at Her Majesty’s pleasure or the Governor General’s pleasure; we are already independent so an independent state, it isn’t the Queen or the Governor General who decides a sentence, we have a sentence of powers and our judicial system must be independent and it is on that basis why attorneys for the Crown agreed that there has been a breach of the law and the appeal has been allowed on the constitutional basis that there has been a breach on the principle of separation of powers.”

Ms Timothy said the Supreme Court is expected to decide if her client, who is now 60-years-old, should be released based on a psychiatric report and a “social report.”

In its ruling, the Privy Council wrote: “The parties should seek directions from the Supreme Court as to the evidence it requires, such as psychiatric and social reports to consider the following factors applicable to the question of continuing detention: (a) whether the appellant is suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for him to be liable to be detained in hospital for medical treatment; or (b) whether it is necessary for the health or safety of the appellant or for the protection of the public that he should receive such treatment.”