The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal has reaffirmed the 36-year sentence of a man convicted of murder in 2013, after refusing his application for an extension of time within which to appeal his conviction.

Rodriguez Jean Pierre was convicted of murder on February 26, 2013. A little over two months later in May 2013, he was sentenced to 36 years’ imprisonment. Six years after his conviction, Pierre filed an extension of time application, despite the fact the Court of Appeal Act requires conviction appeals to be filed within 21 days of the conviction date. Still, the appellant argued his appeal was delayed due to “circumstances” out of his control since he did not “have counsel nor the means to obtain one”.

Last week, Justices Sir Michael Barnett, Roy Jones and Milton Evans refused the appellant’s application after ruling it did not prove Pierre took any steps to “exercise his statutory right of appeal” for more than six years.

According to a judgment posted on the court’s website, Pierre appealed his murder sentence on the grounds his verdict was “unsafe and unsatisfactory” in view of the circumstances of the case. He also argued his sentence was “unduly hard and severe” and insisted the judge erred by admitting the evidence of an officer regarding an alleged confession, where no interpreter was present among a host of other concerns.

In his judgment, Sir Michael stated: “It is to be noted that in his affidavit explaining the delay, he gives no evidence as to when he first formed an intention to appeal, no evidence as to what steps he took during the six years to obtain counsel, no explanation as to why he did not write to the court indicating that he wished to appeal his conviction and ask the court’s assistance in obtaining counsel. It is to be noted that in the trial below he was represented by counsel, appointed by the court, pursuant to a Crown brief. He did not have the means to pay back in 2013 but was able to obtain the court’s assistance in representation. On the evidence, it was not until six years after his conviction did he manifest any intention to appeal his conviction.”

He also noted how Pierre’s appeal did not include any “important questions of law or of jurisdiction”. He said this fact made the appellant’s appeal different from another successful case involving a man who appealed his life imprisonment sentence six years out of time, since he was able to show how he “manifested an intention to appeal” within the first 21 days of his conviction.

“We heard submissions on the prospects of success in this case. The first ground alleging a breach of the applicant’s constitutional rights because he was not cautioned in Creole has no merit,” he said. “The transcript reveals that the applicant understood the English language and never suggested to the officers that he did not understand the caution. The allegations about the competence of his representation is negated by the affidavit evidence of his counsel who conducted the trial.”

He added: “The only issue raised by this appeal that had any prospect for success was whether the judge was clear in his direction as to whether the applicant intended to kill the deceased when he stabbed him which would cause the murder conviction to be reduced to manslaughter. “The problem with the applicant’s case is that the transcript contains denials by the applicant that he in fact stabbed the deceased.”

Sir Arthur Barnett said he believed an application for an extension of time must be dismissed when an application is delayed in an “excess of six years with no good or sufficient reason” to justify the deferral.

He insisted the only way such an appeal should be granted is if an applicant could prove that “significant injustice” would occur if the appeal is dismissed. He said he did not believe it was “sufficient” to argue that an appeal could have some “prospect of success where the intended appellant simply sat on his right to appeal for more than six years”.

“If the reasons given by the applicant in this case for a delay of over six years were accepted by this court then any inmate in prison could wait for an inordinately long period of time before giving any indication of an intention to appeal and have his appeal heard on its merits,” he said.

“In my judgment this would undermine the statutory time limit in section 17 of the Court of Appeal Act and the necessity for certainty and closure. A person has lost his right of appeal after 21 days. To obtain the indulgence of the court to hear an appeal after the time imposed by statute it is necessary that the delay should be of a much shorter duration and good and sufficient reasons given for it. For these reasons I would refuse the application for an extension of time and affirm the applicant’s conviction and sentence.”