The Tribune

By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS

Tribune Staff Reporter

lmunnings@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal has upheld the conviction of a man for armed robbery but reduced his prison sentence after finding that the trial judge made an error in law during sentencing.

In a judgment, the court dismissed Rollins Rolle’s appeal against conviction but allowed his appeal against sentence, setting aside the original sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment and substituting a sentence of 15 years, less the three months he spent on remand.

The court found that the trial judge erred by treating Rolle’s “lack of remorse” as an aggravating factor when determining his sentence. The court noted that a defendant who maintains his innocence cannot reasonably be expected to express remorse at the same time. As a result, the court ruled that considering a lack of remorse as an aggravating factor amounted to a material error in principle.

Because it was unclear how much weight the judge placed on that factor, the appellate court reconsidered the sentence.

In reviewing the matter, the judges acknowledged the seriousness of armed robbery and the need for deterrent sentences. However, they also placed significant weight on several mitigating factors, including Rolle’s clean criminal record, his young age of 22 at the time of the offence, the fact that he was employed and that he had enrolled at the University of The Bahamas after the offence.

The court concluded that these factors indicated strong prospects for rehabilitation and reduced the sentence to 15 years’ imprisonment.

The conviction arose from an armed robbery that occurred on May 22, 2021, at about 8pm in the parking area of a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant in Oakes Field. According to the evidence, the victim, Mr Stephon Laguerre, was approached by a man armed with a firearm who demanded the keys to his green Honda Accord. The robber also took Mr Laguerre’s iPhone before fleeing the scene in the vehicle.

Mr Laguerre reported the incident to police and described the assailant as a tall, dark male with a high afro hairstyle. He said the man was wearing a grey short-sleeved shirt, grey short pants and black slippers, and had a surgical mask covering his mouth.

Two days after the robbery, police officers in the Wilson Tract area observed a green Honda Accord on premises occupied by Rolle. Officers contacted Mr Laguerre, who attended the scene and positively identified the vehicle as the one stolen from him. He also identified Rolle as the person who robbed him.

Mr Laguerre further noted that Rolle was wearing the same black slippers he had worn during the robbery. Police arrested Rolle and transported the vehicle to the police station, where it was examined for forensic evidence. Latent fingerprints recovered from the vehicle matched Rolle’s palm print and right ring fingerprint.

Rolle declined to participate in a formal identification parade, however police subsequently conducted a 12-person photo gallery identification procedure, during which surgical masks were digitally placed over the lower portion of each photograph to replicate the appearance of the robber during the incident.

Mr Laguerre positively identified Rolle during that procedure.

During a police interview, Rolle denied committing the robbery and claimed he was with his girlfriend, Nicole, at the time of the incident. However, the investigating officer testified that efforts to locate anyone matching that description in the area identified by Rolle were unsuccessful.

The officer further testified that while transporting Rolle to the Grove Police Station after the interview, Rolle made an oral confession.

During cross-examination at trial, the officer denied suggestions from the defence that the confession had been fabricated. Rolle was convicted on March 6, 2024 before Madam Justice Joyann Ferguson for armed robbery under section 339(2) of the Penal Code and later sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment.

On appeal, his attorney argued that the identification evidence was unreliable, noting that the robbery occurred at night and that the robber wore a mask. The defence also challenged the photo gallery procedure, arguing that the use of digitally superimposed masks made the identification improper.

The Court of Appeal rejected those submissions as the judges noted that the victim observed the robber for approximately five minutes and was standing about two feet away from him in a well-lit parking area.

Although the robber wore a mask, the court noted that the victim testified he was able to remember the robber’s facial structure. The description given to police shortly after the robbery also matched Rolle’s height, complexion and hairstyle.

The court found that the identification evidence was reliable and properly left for the jury to consider.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the identification evidence, combined with the fingerprint evidence, the discovery of the stolen vehicle at Rolle’s residence two days after the robbery and the oral confession, provided overwhelming evidence of guilt.

As a result, the court affirmed Rolle’s conviction for armed robbery but reduced his sentence from 18 years to 15 years’ imprisonment, less the three months he spent on remand. The sentence will take effect from the date of conviction.