The Tribune

BY FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal is set to determine whether Khofe Goodman, the man convicted of the murder of 11-year-old Marco Archer, will be granted permission to appeal his 55-year prison sentence.

Archer, a student at Columbus Primary School, went missing from Brougham Street on September 23, 2011, and was found dead days later in bushes behind an apartment complex on Yorkshire Drive near where Goodman lived.

It is believed that Archer died from blunt force trauma to his head.

The boy was reported missing by his family after failing to return home from a neighbourhood store where he went to purchase candy. His family begged for help in ensuring that he was returned home safely.

Goodman was initially convicted of Archer’s killing on August 2, 2013 and sentenced to death by hanging by Justice Bernard Turner on October 29, 2013.

However, the Court of Appeal overturned that conviction and sentence and ordered a retrial because of the “lurking doubt about the fairness of the trial”.

Goodman was reconvicted of the murder on May 30, 2017, following the second trial before Justice Carolita Bethel. Wayne Munroe, QC, represented him at the time.

In May 2018, Justice Bethel sentenced Goodman to 55 years in prison for killing the young boy after rejecting the Crown’s call for the death sentence. Seven years were ordered to be deducted from that sentence to account for time he had spent in custody up to that point.

At the time, Goodman had 21 days to file notice of an appeal against his conviction; however, he failed to do so.

Now, a little over two years later, public defender Stanley Rolle is trying to persuade the panel to consider Goodman’s appeal.

On Friday, the appellate tribunal of justices Sir Michael Barnett, Jon Isaacs and Roy Jones heard arguments from Crown attorney Garvin Gaskin and Mr Rolle on the matter.

In his submissions, Mr Gaskin argued that there was a “pattern” which connected Goodman with the crime.

He also referenced the case of Caryn Moss which he said the panel was “familiar” with.

“This was a convict who was convicted of an offence of conspiracy to commit murder. She was sentenced originally to 20 years and when she appealed, that sentence was increased to 35 years,” he said. “This was an appellant who appeared before you with no previous convictions, she had some relative youth on her side and so there were some mitigating factors, but this court found it appropriate and proportionate to sentence her to 35 years”.

Mr Gaskin said the Crown was of the view that Goodman did not “carry the same mitigating qualities and features” of Ms Moss since he had “multiple convictions for crimes of violence”.

He also asked the panel to consider the fact that the accused had been “spared” from the death penalty “based on sentencing principles” and also highlighted the fact that the seven years he had spent on remand were deducted from his overall sentence.

During his presentation, Mr Gaskin made reference to the “relatively recent” case of Dion Bethel, an appellant with no previous convictions who had his 40-year murder sentence affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

He said these cases were just some examples which demonstrated how the court had responded to matters when it came to the “exercise of proportionality and the material issue of whether there was an error in principle”.

“The last criterion is the prejudice to the intended appellant, and we simply contend that in the circumstances of this particular case that there is prejudice as the matter certainly has taken some two years plus – a far cry from the required or prescribed 21 days,” he furthered.

“We say that in all of the circumstances (regarding) the explanation of delay, we ask that the court find it wanting . . . There are rules, and the rules are important, and they are to be complied with. You don't say for instance that ‘I have a strong case so I’m going to approach the court when I see fit’. That’s not how it works”.

In his defence, Mr Rolle asked the court to consider whether “adequate and efficient facilities” have been put in place to help “facilitate” people who wish to appeal their convictions, as they examined the reason for delay in Goodman’s case.

Still, Justice Isaacs said while the “system was not perfect, it was well known” that a person had 21 days to file their appeal. He also stated that Goodman should be familiar with the way the procedure ran since he went through the process before.

In another ground, Mr Rolle questioned the competence of Goodman’s previous counsel, Wayne Munroe, QC, for failing to call on Goodman’s alibi witnesses.

He also argued that some jury members could have been impacted by pre-trial publicity since the jury had asked a question regarding sexual assault before any evidence suggested an offence of that nature had occurred.

In rebuttal, Mr Gaskin said that argument was an “inaccurate representation of evidence” since references were made to the issue at hand during trial before any questions of a sexual nature were posed by the jury.

In his closing arguments, Rolle noted that the summing up was “crucial to the balancing of the trial process”. He said in light of that fact, he was asking the court to “have regard to the way in which the summing up was dealt”.

“The bulk of the summing up is simply a regurgitation of prosecuting counsel’s speech with very little cross reference and factual basis to what actually was the evidence,” he asserted.

After listening to the submissions from the Crown and defence attorneys, Sir Barnett said the panel would reserve their decision so that they could “take time to consider the matter”. He said that a decision would be made in “due course” and both parties would be notified of the judgement.