The Tribune

By EARYEL BOWLEG

Tribune Staff Reporter

ebowleg@tribunemedia.net

A PRIVY Council ruling that could lead to a man being freed from Sandilands Rehabilitation Centre after being there for decades could open the door for other people to make applications to the courts for release, according to lawyers.

At the age of 21 on April 17, 1983 Eric Stubbs was arrested for the offences of housebreaking and rape.

According to his lawyer, Sonia Timothy, Stubbs—who has mental illness—was at a family function where he began laughing and police were called. She said Stubbs was taken by the police from his home and was driven out west.

She claimed he was told that by the time he walked into town that he should be normal. Instead, she said he wandered into Lyford Cay thinking he was in the “Garden of Eden,” followed a dog and ended up at a woman’s home.

Following a jury trial on April 10, 1984, he was convicted. He was sentenced nine days later to seven years’ imprisonment.

According to his attorney, his appeal was heard on February 27, 1985. He was not represented at his appeal.

“The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. It was ordered that for the verdict of guilty there be substituted a verdict of guilty but insane and that an order that for the sentences of seven years’ imprisonment there be substituted an order that the appellant be conveyed to Sandilands Rehabilitation Centre, there to be kept until discharged by order of the Governor General, as per Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act, 1968, which is now our Section 192,” Ms Timothy explained.

Back in March 2021, an application was made to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee to the Privy Council.

The matter dealt with the role of the Governor General in legal matters. Based on another case, it was highlighted “sentencing is a quintessentially judicial function.”

Ms Timothy argued that in this case, leaving the convict’s release up to the Governor General was a constitutional violation of the country’s separation of powers of the executive, judiciary, legislature.

In June 2021, the Court of Appeal denied leave noting the application was “woefully out of time”.

However, on December 15, 2021, on an agreement by the parties, the appeal was allowed to the extent specified on the grounds raised in relation to separation of powers.

Ms Timothy said the Supreme Court is expected to decide if her client 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.”

A direction hearing was heard before Senior Justice Bernard Turner on December 22, 2021. The matter has been adjourned to January 21 for presentation of the psychiatric reports.

Stubbs has been in Sandilands since 1985. He is now 60 years old.

At yesterday’s press conference, it was highlighted that the appeal and the Privy Council’s decision affects persons in similar circumstances.

“There are other persons to whom this decision would affect them,” Ms Timothy said. “(It may) lead to their release and again dependent on the psychiatric report which says that they are not of a danger to themselves. They are not a danger to society. There is no need for their continued detention.”

Stanley Rolle at the Office of the Public Defender said regarding other people affected by an order from the court giving such powers to the Governor General to have them released at his/her pleasure, the door is now open for them to make an application to have that reviewed.

Asked how many will be affected, he stated: “I could not say off hand but I would say this much. In most cases where a juvenile has been convicted of murder, I know of at least two juveniles when they were convicted who sit at the Queen’s pleasure. One at the Governor General’s pleasure. So those are persons who are impacted.

“One of the problems I know that one has is that our Court of Appeal took the position it had no power to grant leave in criminal matters to appeal to the Privy Council and because of that decision persons now on the criminal side go directly to the UK Privy Council.

“One of the difficulties that most prisoners may have is always money and for my part it is something that I believe the criminal bar or any criminal lawyer should challenge at the Privy Council so that if it is that the Court of Appeal by virtue of its act does not have that power, just as in this order, amendments can be made to give the Court of Appeal power to grant leave. There are cases that there is merit but because of the position or because of the opinion of the Court of Appeal ……and most persons cannot afford to go to the Privy Council.”