The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal has affirmed the 45-year prison sentence of a man who was convicted of killing his father two years ago.

In 2017, Lee Sweeting was charged with the murder of his father. He was found guilty almost two years later in April 2019 and was subsequently sentenced to 45 years in prison minus the one year, eight months and two weeks he spent on remand awaiting trial.

He recently sought to appeal his sentence on the grounds that it was unduly harsh. He also argued that the judge failed to order a psychiatric report.

After listening to submissions and reserving their decision on the matter, Justices Jon Isaacs, Milton Evans and Carolita Bethell denied Sweeting’s extension of time application and affirmed his murder sentence.

In their ruling, delivered by Justice Isaacs, the panel noted the fact that a jury convicted Sweeting of murder suggested they “did not find that provocation was involved, nor was there any justification for the killing, nor any partial excuse”.

“Moreover, there was no evidence led in the trial that the intended appellant was suffering from any disorder of the mind at the time of the murder,” Justice Isaacs noted. “Indeed, the probation report discloses that the intended appellant killed his father to prevent him from informing his family and the police that the intended appellant had broken into the father's home. This suggests a degree of premeditation and poses a motive for the father's death. There is no apparent involvement of drug use or deprivation to cause the murder.”

Justice Isaacs said there was “nothing disclosed in the circumstances” of Sweeting’s case that would motivate the Court of Appeal to find that the trial judge made a mistake when he chose not to order a psychiatric or psychological report for Sweeting.

He said he could not find fault with the judge’s reasoning because a “person who is capable of the cunning execution of a family member with whom he held no grudge and for whom he ought to have some affinity would, in all likelihood, pose a danger to other members of the community with whom he did not share any degree of affinity or consanguinity.

“I am satisfied the sentence meted out by the judge has not gone ‘further and exceeded the generous ambit within which a reasonable disagreement was possible,’” he said. “Inasmuch as I am satisfied that this appeal holds no prospects of success, I do not accede to the EOT application. Consequently, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.”