The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE 

Tribune News Editor 

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

THE Privy Council quashed the life sentence of a man convicted of murder more than three decades ago, ordering that he be resentenced after finding that a serious procedural error denied him a fair hearing on his punishment.

The ruling, handed down this week, found that the man, whose death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in 1996, never had an opportunity to be heard on what sentence he should serve. That failure, the court said, amounted to a breach of justice that must now be corrected.

The decision means the Supreme Court must reassess the man’s punishment, considering aggravating and mitigating factors in a sentencing hearing that never occurred when the life sentence was imposed nearly 30 years ago.

“The appellant ought to have been, but was not, afforded an opportunity to be heard on the appropriate substitute sentence,” the judgment said.

“The board cannot be confident that no injury had been done to the appellant by virtue of the serious procedural error.”

Although the appellant’s original death sentence was declared unlawful under evolving constitutional standards, the Privy Council said the life sentence that replaced it could not stand either because of the flawed process used to impose it.

The judgment stems from a case that has spanned decades and seen the legal landscape for capital punishment shift significantly. In 1992, the man was sentenced to death for murder. That sentence was automatically imposed under Bahamian law at the time, which prescribed the death penalty for murder without consideration of individual circumstances.

However, in 1996, the Privy Council ruled that such mandatory death sentences were unconstitutional, resulting in many sentences being reviewed and commuted. In the appellant’s case, his death sentence was replaced by a life sentence.

What was missing, the Privy Council now says, was a sentencing hearing to determine whether life imprisonment was the appropriate punishment in his case.

“A just sentence, where the sentence is not fixed by law, should be proportionate to the gravity of the crime considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances,” the ruling said.

Because that process never occurred, the board ruled that the appellant was denied a fair hearing on punishment, breaching the principles of natural justice.

The board made clear that its decision does not call into question the appellant’s conviction. Rather, it focused solely on whether the correct procedure was followed in determining his sentence.

The ruling emphasises that even those convicted of serious crimes are entitled to basic procedural safeguards.

“The appellant, the victim’s family, and the public are entitled to know the appropriate sentence in his case for the serious crime which he committed,” the judgment said.

The board noted that even if the appellant has already been released or is soon released under the prerogative of mercy, a proper sentencing decision must still be made.

The judgment also dismissed two broader arguments raised by the appellant’s legal team. First, it rejected a claim that the life sentence was invalid because the Privy Council lacked authority in 1996 to impose it as a substitute for the unlawful death sentence. Citing past rulings, the court said appellate courts have clear jurisdiction to strike down unlawful sentences and replace them with lawful ones.

Second, the court dismissed an effort to reopen the case through new constitutional proceedings.

The Board ruled that such an approach would undermine the finality of legal decisions and said it would abuse the court process.

Instead, the board relied on its rare and exceptional power — known as the “Pinochet jurisdiction” — to revisit earlier decisions in cases where serious procedural unfairness had occurred. The name comes from a landmark UK case involving former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.