The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal has affirmed the nine-year sentence of a man who was convicted of robbing a woman of an assortment of personal items over four years ago.

Prosecutors said at the time of the incident, Richard Bevans, while being armed with an offensive instrument, robbed Christine Stubbs of a $700 LG cellular phone, a Royal Bank debit card, a Bahamian driver’s licence and $200 cash.

In July 2017, he stood trial for the armed robbery offence in the Supreme Court and was convicted and sentenced to nine years and nine months imprisonment, less the 27 months he spent on remand prior to his conviction, a year later in August 2018.

The intended appellant recently applied to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to appeal his conviction after arguing that the crown’s failure to disclose a sketch Ms Stubbs made describing her assailant was a “material irregularity” which affected the fairness of the trial. He also asserted the trial judge’s decision not to “satisfactorily direct the jury on the prosecution’s failure” made the verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory.

However, on Wednesday, Justices Sir Michael Barnett, Jon Isaacs and Roy Jones, refused his application for extension and affirmed his sentence and conviction.

In their judgement, delivered by Justice Jones, the panel noted length and reasons for delay, the prospect of success and the prejudice, if any, to the intended respondent, were the main factors they considered when they reviewed an application for an extension of time.

They said “regarding the length of the delay”, Bevans was out of time by about eight months. They also said his reason for that delay was his “reliance on counsel” who did not provide the documents he needed to prepare for his appeal as well as the “unfavourable response” he received from the Bahamas Department of Correctional Services.

“Regarding the intended appellant’s prospects of success, during the trial Ms Stubbs testified that she drew a sketch of the assailant,” Justice Jones furthered.

“That sketch was not a part of the crown’s file. The intended appellant submits that the fairness of his trial was affected by the nondisclosure of the sketch to the defence. In response, the intended respondent submits that in addition to the visual identification there was fingerprint evidence connecting the intended appellant to the scene and also that they were not aware of the sketch until Ms Stubbs’ testimony.

“The sketch referred to by Ms Stubbs was prepared by her, not the police; there is no evidence to suggest that the police or the prosecutors ever had the sketch in their possession. The court cannot say whether the sketch would have assisted the intended appellant and that its non-production was a material irregularity. Further, there was no evidence that the sketch was ever provided to the police or prosecution and therefore there could be no duty to direct the jury in relation thereto. The intended grounds of appeal have no prospects of success.”