The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal yesterday affirmed the sentence of a man who was convicted in 2017 for having an unlicensed loaded gun.

Dieuson Tomas was found guilty of being in possession of the unregistered firearm and a quantity of ammunition after the evidence presented during his trial said he was seen throwing the firearm before he was arrested by officers.

He recently appealed his conviction after arguing the magistrate failed to comply with the provisions of Section 108 as outlined in the Criminal Prosecution Code. He was given a three-year jail sentence.

Yesterday, Justices Sir Michael Barnett, Jon Isaacs and Roy Jones dismissed Tomas’ appeal and confirmed his sentence after ruling that the evidence against the appellant was “compelling”.

According to a judgment in August 2017 Tomas was found with a black Glock Austria .40 Pistol and six live rounds of .40 rounds ammunition. During his trial, the prosecution argued officers in the Wilson Tract vicinity heard shots and went to the area. When they got there, they found and chased Tomas.

“One of the officers giving chase saw the appellant throw a firearm which was recovered,” the court documents read.

“The appellant’s case was that he was riding his bike in the area when he was fired upon by men in a vehicle. He crashed and ran to avoid being shot and it was at this time that police came on the scene instructing him to get down and he complied. The appellant denied that he was in possession of the firearm.”

In his appeal, Tomas’ attorney, Glendon Rolle, argued there was no evidence to suggest his client was “in possession” of the gun. He also contended the magistrate gave “inadequate directions on points of law”.

Still, in their judgment, the panel ruled that it was up to the magistrate to decide what evidence he believed.

“The magistrate correctly states in his judgment that this case involved a dispute as to whether the appellant was in possession of the firearm. The magistrate, being the tribunal of law and fact accepted the prosecution’s evidence. The evidence against the appellant was compelling, as the officer’s evidence was such as to place the gun in the hands of the appellant. Given that the judge stated that he preferred the prosecution’s evidence there was reason to convict.’

Sir Michael continued: “Having any other verdict would have been perverse. I would dismiss the appeal and affirm the sentence.”