The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal recently quashed the 15-year armed robbery sentence of a man who was accused of breaking into a home and robbing its occupants in 2018.

On February 13, 2018, a Star Estates residence was broken into and its occupants were robbed by masked gunmen. Shervin Munnings, Jr, was arrested and charged with armed robbery sometime later.

At the trial, the prosecution presented evidence generated from an electronic monitoring device, which proved that the appellant was in the area at the time of the robbery and indicated that he had left the area at a high rate of speed.

During the proceedings, Munnings Jr elected not to give evidence in court. He was later convicted of the offence and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.

He appealed his conviction on the grounds that the judge erred by admitting evidence pertaining to the monitoring device to go before the jury, despite the fact that there was no evidence in the case connecting him to the offences that could prove he broke into the house, or played any part in committing the offences.

Last week, Justices Sir Michael Barnett, Roy Jones and Milton Evans quashed Munning Jr’s sentence and conviction after ruling that “mere presence is not enough to ground a conviction”.

According to a judgement posted on the court’s website, at the time of the incident, the occupants of the home that was broken into told police they believed that Max, a man that was formerly employed at Lyford Cay, had robbed them.

“One of the witnesses gave evidence that one of the masked men who robbed them said, while holding them at gunpoint ‘y’all playing with Max motorbike’,” the court documents said. “The appellant was not known as Max and he has never worked at Lyford Cay and there was no connection shown between Max and the appellant”.

Around 7.30am on the day in question, two police officers, acting on information, proceeded to Montel Heights where they arrested Munnings Jr in connection with the matter.

“At the time of the offence the appellant was on bail and he was being electronically monitored,” the court documents said.

“When the appellant was interviewed by Sergeant 2504 Brian Moss in relation to this matter, he denied any involvement and informed Officer Moss that he was at home at the time of the incident.”

In his judgement, Justice Evans said “even great suspicion is not enough to convict an accused person.”

“Accepting the principle that mere presence is not enough to ground a conviction, the fact that the sum total of the evidence in this case merely places the appellant in the area of the scene of the crime is in my view fatal to the respondent’s case,” he stated.

“They have been unable to show what role if any he played in the crimes for which he was convicted. At the end of the day the appellant’s conduct may have been suspicious. However, it is a cardinal rule of our law that suspicion, even great suspicion is not enough to convict an accused person.”

He continued: “For the foregoing reasons I would allow the appeal and quash the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. Due to the fact that I have found that the no case submission should have been acceded to I do not find that a retrial would be in the interest of justice. The appellant should therefore be acquitted.”