The Tribune

By JADE RUSSELL

Tribune staff Reporter

jrussell@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal ordered the release of an 81-year-old great-grandmother yesterday, citing her age and medical condition while releasing her from a one-year prison sentence.

Freda Hart was convicted of trying to hide her grandson’s unlicensed firearm in December 2020 when police showed up with a search warrant. Ms Hard reportedly went into her grandson, James Hart’s bedroom, and grabbed a “pink towel”.

 Officers later found that the pink towel hid an unlicensed firearm and eight rounds of ammunition.

 In February 2023, Ms Hart was convicted in the Magistrate’s Court of one count of possession of an unlicensed firearm and one count of possession of ammunition. Her grandson was also charged with the same offences. He was sentenced to 30 months and two years in prison.

 Ms Hart was initially sentenced to one year in prison.

 Ms Hart served six months and 12 days in prison before the Court of Appeal ordered her immediate release. The court said she served sufficient time for her “serious mistake”.

 The woman’s medical report disclosed she had early dementia, hyperlipidemia issues, and an enlarged heart that requires medication.

 Sir Michael Barnett wrote that the Court of Appeal was satisfied that it was right to interfere with the magistrate’s sentencing.

 Sir Michael argued that the woman’s medical records were not shown to the magistrate during the sentencing.

 “The court appreciates that it should be loathe to interfere with the sentence of a sentencing judge and should only do so in limited circumstances,” Sir Michael wrote. “However, the appellant’s medical evidence was not before the magistrate. At the time of sentencing, the appellant was not represented by counsel. Had the magistrate had the benefit of full argument and the appellant’s medical report to assist him, he may well have come to a different sentencing decision. Therefore, the magistrate was unable to fully consider all relevant factors, particularly the appellant’s medical condition.”

 “This court, having the benefit of that information, is satisfied that this is a proper case to interfere with the sentencing discretion of the magistrate. The appellant has already spent over six months and 12 days in prison. Given her age and medical condition, the court is satisfied that this is sufficient punishment for her serious mistake. She should spend no further time in prison and should be released immediately.”

 Sir Michael said Ms Hart’s overall physical state played a big role in the appellate court’s decision.

 “There can be no doubt that an appellant’s age and medical condition are relevant factors in determining a proper sentence which a court should impose,” he said.

 Justice Jon Isaacs, however, dissented from the majority’s opinion.

 “I am unable to agree with his decision to interfere with the sentence imposed by the magistrate,” he wrote, referring to Sir Michael.

 “The actions of the intended appellant in attempting to conceal the firearm amounted to shielding her co-accused. Such actions hinder the police’s efforts to interdict illegal firearms and remove them from our streets. The carnage inflicted through the use of such weapons is a notorious fact of which the court may take judicial notice.”

 “I find that this court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the intended appellant’s incarceration at BDOCS because there is nothing from the medical officer at BDOCS to show that she cannot be adequately treated at BDOCS. Further, during the sentencing phase, the magistrate took into account all of the evidence presented to him. As such, I do not find that the magistrate fell into error when he sentenced the intended appellant to twelve months at BDOCS.”