45 years minimum: Lessons from the Sangster and Dixon case

THE EDITOR, Madam:

THE PRIME minister’s bold statement that the Cabinet will be recommending to the Parliament that there be an amendment making sentences of 45 years minimum imprisonment and the death penalty for non-capital and capital murder, respectively, has not attracted much reaction to date. I, however, am compelled to give my response, drawing on my 43 years at the Bar.

The pressure of repeated calls for a crime plan, in the face of our horrific murder rate, has in my opinion propelled the prime minister into making this announcement. It has certainly made him appear tough on crime, and he is certain to earn the applause of many citizens who are fed up of the State’s inability, so far, to stem the murders we wake up to each morning.

The prime minister’s statement flaunts, in my view, the principle of separation of powers. Why can’t we set a maximum and allow our judges to give appropriate sentences, depending on the circumstances surrounding the commission of the particular murder? Why are we using a broad-brush ‘45 years fits all’ approach? The Parliament will shortly breach the wall of separation of powers, and dictate to judges what sentence they should impose on our citizens.

My starting point in this discussion is the pronouncement of the Privy Council in Randall v The Queen [2002] UKPC 19, a case from the Cayman Islands, where the judges said “the right to a fair trial is to be enjoyed by the guilty as well as the innocent until proved to be otherwise in a fairly conducted trial”.

CRITICAL LEAD

I wish, going forward in my discourse, to share the justice system experience of two Jamaican citizens, Mr Mark Sangster and Mr Randall Dixon. Sangster and Dixon, having faced their trial for the murder of Corporal Gordon at a Western Union branch, were sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment and the mandatory death penalty, respectively. An identification parade was held for both men following the robbery/murder incident in the Western Union building. Several employees attended the identification parade. None of the employees pointed out Sangster or Dixon. However, they were pointed out by two policemen, one of whom was shot during their engagement with the robbers.

Immediately following the robbery, the manager informed the police that there was available footage of the robbery on the Western Union’s camera. Shockingly, notwithstanding this critical lead given to the police, these tapes were never given to the lawyers for Sangster and Dixon.

In fact, the police did get a copy of the tapes, but said there were no clear images of the robbers shown on them. As a result, the trial, and thereafter the local appeal in which our own chief justice, being at that time a senior deputy director of public prosecutions, proceeded. Both the trial and that appeal proceeded without the benefit of the tapes. The men, by pro bono (no fees required), appealed to the Privy Council ([2002] UKPC 58). That court was the first to see the tapes. The judges, after viewing the footage, rebutted the say-so of the police. Having viewed the footage during the hearing of the appeal, the judges commented that though some images were “blurred, others are remarkably clear”.

GUARANTEE FAIR TRIAL

The life of Dixon was saved by the last-minute revelation of exclusionary evidence; and so was the life of Sangster. I have examined this case and have asked how many others are now serving time, innocent of that which they have been convicted, because the justice system failed them? Our own former president of the Court of Appeal, in the case of Harry Daley v R [2013] JMCA Crim 14, during a hearing in which the appellant, a superintendent of police who was convicted, declared that:

“Fairness involves, among other things, the prosecution not putting obstacles in the path of the conduct of the defence of the person charged, or withholding material relevant to the case. For example, where there are matters that are likely to be of importance to the defence and they are under the control of the prosecution, such matters ought to be disclosed.”

The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, in my humble opinion, must first be adhered to before we seek to amend our laws to give stiffer punishments for persons convicted of murder. Though Sangster was awarded $13 million, he had spent seven years in prison after losing his trial, and thereafter his local appeal, before the final court of appeal freed him. Seven years of his young life had already passed in prison. He is recorded as saying in a Gleaner interview in November 2007 that:

“I felt suicidal and cried many times. When you know you did not do anything and you a go dead inna prison, it really hit you hard.”

Until we can guarantee our citizens a fair trial, we should not implement draconian sentences which turn a blind eye to the circumstances of each individual case.

BERT SAMUELS bert.samuels@gmail.com