The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal yesterday dismissed the appeal of two men who challenged their murder and attempted armed robbery convictions as well as the 40-year sentence handed down by the Supreme Court.

However, 27-year-old Raymond Darling and 29-year-old Herman Natario Francis intend to appeal the court’s ruling to the London-based Privy Council.

In 2010, Darling and Francis were found guilty of murder and attempted armed robbery of Tyna “Penny” Pinder, which occurred nearly seven years ago.

Ms Pinder, 33 at the time, was shot to death in her office at the Cool Breeze Apartments in Grand Bahama on November 25, 2005.

She died of cardiac arrest as a result of being shot in the neck. Prosecutors said the two planned the robbery and took steps to carry it out by using a shotgun.

Not long after the conviction and sentencing, the men appealed to Appeal court. The matter was adjourned on numerous occasions in 2011. It finally started this summer.

Darling’s grounds of appeal were that Justice Hartman Longley erred in law when he ruled that Darling, according to the evidence, had a case to answer; erred in law and in fact when he convicted Darling having regard to the evidence and again when he did not adequately put Darling’s defence to the jury.

Darling also felt that the sentence was excessive and the convictions unreasonable and unsafe having regard to the evidence.

Franics had less grounds of appeal.

He claimed the prosecution failed to prove that he had the requisite common intention to commit armed robbery and the intention to kill Tyna Pinder.

Francis too claimed that the conviction was unreasonable and unsafe having regard to the evidence, and the sentence unduly harsh and severe.

In the 26-page ruling from Justices Anita Allen, Christopher Blackman and Abdulai Conteh, the evidence was outlined with the confession prosecutors presented to the court as evidence of the two men committing the crimes.

However, Darling and Francis had argued that the confession statements were not obtained voluntarily.

In the confession statements, Darling claimed he was the driver for the accused and another man who were going on a “play around” the corner with a man who had money.

Evidence in the trial revealed that the term meant doing illegal activity to get money.

In regard to Francis, he testified that he thought he was going on a drug peddling run and when he was told of the men’s real plan to do a “play around”, asked to be let out of the car.

The appeal court judges did not find merit in either man’s grounds of appeal having considered the evidence and the Supreme Court judges’ actions as it related to directing the jury.

Regarding the 40-year sentence, the Court of Appeal believed that Justice Longley weighed both the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in respect to each of the appellants and sentenced them accordingly.

The court dismissed the appeals and affirmed both convictions and sentences handed to the appellants.

Attorney Richard Bootle indicated his client’s (Darling) intention to seek leave through the appropriate legal channels to appeal to the Privy Council.

Outside court, attorney Jiaram Mangra said that his client was also likely to appeal to the Privy Council.