The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

COURT of Appeal Justices yesterday dismissed the appeal of a man convicted in 2010 of armed robbery and burglary at the home of Super Value Food Stores owner Rupert Roberts.

In March 2012, a jury unanimously found Clifford Miller, 44, guilty of robbing Mr Roberts of $800 and his Chevy Trailblazer SUV, valued at $20,000. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison.

The Crown, during his trial, produced a video-taped confession statement which Miller claimed was obtained through force and brutality.

Court of Appeal Justices Anita Allen, Christopher Blackman and Abdulai Conteh reduced Miller’s sentence yesterday by six months, taking into account the time he spent on remand.

Nonetheless, the Justices rejected the arguments his attorney made about why his conviction appeal should be granted.

Attorney Glendon Rolle sought to persuade them that Supreme Court Justice Jon Isaacs erred by permitting the jury to hear certain testimonies. He claimed that not only was Miller beaten by police officers into making a confession, but his will was also sapped as part of them interviewing him on five different robbery cases.

However, the Justices said the appellant’s case in the Supreme Court was solely about physical oppression, not mental. They added that Justice Isaacs was justifiably satisfied that Miller’s claims were not corroborated by evidence.

They alluded to the fact that during the trial in 2012, a doctor testified that although blood found in Miller’s urine four days after he confessed to the crimes he was accused of could have been caused by physical trauma, it is more commonly caused by urinary tract infections.

Similalry, they noted that the doctor testified that abrasions on Miller’s wrists could have been caused by Miller wrestling in handcuffs he was placed in.

The Justices repeatedly pressed Dr Rolle to argue that Justice Isaac’s directions to the jury were faulty in some way. When Dr Rolle said the jury was prejudiced by hearing certain testimonies, they countered that the defence had the opportunity before the jury to express their objections.

In addition, Dr Rolle sought to get Miller’s sentence reduced, noting that Miller is a “family man with two children”. The Justices, however, questioned the basis on which they could reduce his sentence beyond accounting for the time which he spent on remand.