The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

STEPHEN “Die” Stubbs, Andrew “Yogi” Davis, and Clinton “Russ” Evans will serve life sentences for a policeman’s murder.

A Supreme Court judge rejected the Crown’s request for the death penalty, ruling that, based on the circumstances, the murder of the policeman could not be categorised as the most extreme and exceptional, or the “worst of the worst.”

The three men, who had appealed their 2002 conviction and death sentence to the Court of Appeal, were sentenced to life imprisonment after Justice Roy Jones rejected the argument of the Crown that it was an extreme and exceptional murder. The Crown maintained that it had been given a particular category in Bahamian statute law.

“Furthermore, although the deceased was on duty, there is no suggestion in the evidence that he was targeted because he was a policeman in the execution of his duties,” the judge said.

Justice Roy Jones said that even if he were to find that the facts fell into that category, the prosecution’s non-compliance with practice directions to serve notice of their intent to seek the death penalty, “is sufficient to withhold the application of the death penalty to these convicts in this case.”

‘Two out of Three’

With an order that the following sentences were to run concurrently, Justice Jones sentenced the three men to life imprisonment on the first charge of murder and 10 years imprisonment on the second charge of attempted murder.

Clinton Evans, who was convicted of two counts of possession of firearms with intent to put another in fear, was sentenced to three years in prison on each of those counts.

On Tuesday, after the death penalty had been handed down by Justice Bernard Turner to Kofhe Goodman in the September 2011 murder of young Marco Archer, a press conference was held at the Attorney General’s office with Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson and her leading prosecutors.

Mrs Maynard-Gibson told the press that with the execution of justice being the government’s top priority, the Crown was “seeking the death penalty in the matter of Stephen ‘Die’ Stubbs,” and Anthony Clarke Sr, who was sentenced to death by Senior Justice Jon Isaacs on October 10 for the September 2011 contract killing of Aleus Tilus.

‘My son is Innocent’

Yesterday’s alternative sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of the policeman did not rest well with Natalie Stubbs, the mother of Stephen “Die” Stubbs, who continued to defend her son.

“There’s a God in heaven looking down and I know my son is innocent,” she told The Tribune, adding that her son, “is not that kind of person the police trying to make him to be.”

“My son and the police was liking the same gal and he lie on my son,” the mother claimed.

“They know my son ain’t shoot no Ambrose. See here,” she said, pointing to a clipping of The Tribune more than a decade ago where a wanted advertisement was put in the paper for a man, whom she named. However, The Tribune has withheld the name. “This is the person who they was looking for who kill Ambrose,” she claimed.

“He skipped town and gone to the (United) States. And when he did come back here, he say that boy who dead family killed him,” the woman claimed.

“My son is innocent and they lie. There’s a God above and God writing all the time and God don’t stop. I’m a praying woman and I’m going in sack cloth to ask for them for the serious lie, they lie on my son,” she repeated.

The Court of Appeal

Murrio Ducille, Stubbs’ lawyer throughout the trial and sentencing, commented on the life sentence being imposed by the judge as opposed to the highly sought death penalty.

“He had no choice but to do that, death or life given the circumstances,” the lawyer said.

“What we have to deal with now is to deal with the appeal as far as the conviction is concerned. The judge’s discretion is just to either sentence them to death or to life. And you heard the reasoning he gave, which I agree with him, insofar as that is concerned because the case could never be categorised as the worst of the worst.”

Mr Ducille said that one of the key grounds of appeal to be argued is the issue of identification in the case, where he declared the evidence of Martian Scott to be “discrepant” at best.

The Tribune also confirmed with Ian Cargill, lawyer for Andrew Davis, that his client intends to appeal the conviction.

Romona Farquharson-Seymour, who was Evan’s court-appointed lawyer in the trial, said that Evans will appeal the conviction as well. The issue of whether she will be retained as his lawyer is still undecided, despite Evan’s request to the court that she remain.

Death or Life Imprisonment

On July 25, Stubbs, Davis and Evans were each found guilty of murder in the March 1999 death of Constable Jimmy Ambrose and attempted murder of Constable Marcian Scott. Evans was separately charged with two counts of possession of a firearm with intent to put another in fear. He was found guilty on both counts.

Stubbs was represented by Murrio Ducille and Jerone Roberts while Davis and Evans were represented by Ian Cargill and Ramona Farquharson-Seymour respectively.

According to the evidence, Constable Ambrose and Constable Scott were shot at by Stubbs and Evans after a fight in a local nightclub. Ambrose was hit and died as a result of his injuries.

Evans had a firearm with intent to put Constables Frank Burrows and Calvin Robinson in fear of their lives.

All three men pleaded not guilty when the charges were read to them. The jury returned unanimous guilty verdicts on all counts.

Their sentencing was adjourned on two occasions and began over a course of three days last week when prosecution and defence counsel made submissions to the court as to why the death penalty should or should not be imposed.

Romona Farquharson-Seymour asked the court to consider that the Crown failed to comply with established practice directions to serve notice of their intent to seek the death penalty.

She said that her client was not supposed to infer what might happen to him because of procedural errors on the part of the prosecution.

Evans’ lawyer further submitted that the case did not fall into the category of “the worst of the worst” because of the circumstances that started the incident, a fight at the club.

She submitted that there was no premeditation or plan and added that notwithstanding the conviction, her client was never identified at the scene based on the evidence of Marcian Scott.

The lawyer said the court could refer to the case of Maxi Tido deemed “worst of the worst” by then Justice Anita-Allen, though the death sentence in that matter was overturned by the Privy Council.

Mr Cargill, agreeing with Ms Farquharson-Seymour and Murrio Ducille, who made his submissions on Wednesday, adopted the arguments of the two defence counsel, having relied on the same cases.

On Wednesday, Stubbs’ lawyer argued that he has a right to life regardless of a conviction for a policeman’s murder and that Privy Council rulings and those of neighbouring jurisdictions that have supported the “presumption of an unquestionable right to life” in cases in which the death penalty is imposed.

Mr Ducille informed the court that the “right to life” was one of many factors the Privy Council had set out for judge’s to consider, the others being, but not limited to, the extremity of the murder, the question of the convict’s ability to be reformed, and whether or not justice could only be met through death of the convict.

While noting that it is serious for a police officer to be murdered in the execution of his duty, it did not make this particular case egregious and added that death should only be considered in cases “where there is no hope for reform.”

All three defence counsel argued that the previous convictions of their clients prior to the commission of the offence, held no weight as time was served and the offences were dealt with in summary trials, not the Supreme Court.

They concluded that the probation report showed that their clients were not beyond reform and that they were capable of rehabilitation.

Counter-submissions by the prosecution, divided by public prosecutions director Vinette Graham-Allen and senior prosecutor Ambrose Armbrister, began at 11am, adjourned at 1pm and resumed at 3pm.

Graham-Allen refuted the arguments that notice was not served, saying that the nature of the charges and particulars brought against the three men served as notice of the Crown’s intentions.

The DPP also noted that there had been significant development of common and statute law since practice notes were made.

Mr Armbrister asked the court to find that the three convicts “suffer death in the manner authorised by law” because, according to recently amended law taking into account the rulings by the Privy Council, “they have committed murder in the worst of the worst.”

He noted that murder of a disciplined officer, in this instance, was categorised by parliament as one of the worst offences of murder that could be committed, and emphasised that statute law, in the end, supersedes common law.

He asked the court to consider that the victim was shot multiple times about the body, being grabbed and thrown to the ground outside of the club in the execution of his duties.

Mr Armbrister also noted that no remorse had been shown for the crime, which he submitted, was the first step towards rehabilitation.