The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

A MAN who was convicted of robbing a gas station of $1,500 over five years ago had his 15-year sentence quashed by the Court of Appeal after the panel ruled the “misrepresentation” of the evidence by the judge during her summation of the case was “fatal” to him receiving a fair trial.

On December 19, 2015, an armed individual, disguised in dreadlocks, camouflage and sunglasses, entered Esso gas station’s East Street location and robbed the cashier of $1,500.

A short time after the crime was committed, Antwoin Johnson turned himself in to authorities and was subsequently charged with the robbery.

During trial, the prosecution contended Johnson was the robber, while the case for the defence relied on the argument of mistaken identity. His counsel argued that although he did not give evidence, in his record of interview, he admitted to being at the establishment earlier on the day of the robbery.

Over the course of the proceedings, Johnson also called an alibi witness in his defence while the Crown called three eyewitnesses. According to court documents, one eyewitness was not able to identify the appellant at the identification parade nor in court. The other two eyewitnesses identified Johnson as the robber at an identification parade, but were unable to identify him in court.

Nevertheless, the appellant was found guilty, convicted, and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. Johnson recently appealed his conviction on several grounds concerning the identification process. He also challenged the safety of his conviction after arguing there were several “misdirections and misstatements” of the evidence that affected and possibly prejudiced the likelihood of him receiving a fair trial.

After some deliberation, Justices Sir Michael Barnett, Roy Jones and Carolita Bethel quashed Johnson’s conviction and said both parties will be heard on the issue of retrial.

In their judgement, delivered by Sir Michael, the panel noted the presiding judge appeared to give an explanation for the contradiction or inconsistency of the eyewitness testimonies which was not supported by the evidence.

“During her summing up the judge below told the jury that the reason the two witnesses were unable to identify the appellant in court was due to the passage of time, that was not the evidence,” Sir Michael explained.

“The Crown’s case was dependent upon the identification by the two eyewitnesses of the appellant as the robber. Critical to the safety of the conviction was appropriate and clear directions by the judge to the jury as to how to treat the inconsistencies. The judge’s purported explanation of the inconsistency was not supported by the evidence and amounts to a fatal flaw affecting the safety of the verdict.”

Sir Michael insisted Johnson was entitled to a fair trial and that the identification evidence was “critical”.

“The direction to the jury as to how to assess that evidence cannot include a summation of the evidence that was wrong. It must be fair and balanced,” he stated.

“The summing-up has to reflect the whole of the evidence that has been presented to the jury. Not only did (the first two eyewitnesses) not identify the appellant at the trial, in addition, the cashier who was robbed did not identify the appellant as the robber at the identification parade nor at the trial. In my judgment, the misrepresentation of the evidence by the judge was fatal. For these reasons the appeal is allowed, and we will hear the parties on the issue of a retrial. The application for bail pending appeal is dismissed.”