The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

THREE men accused of killing a schoolteacher in a 2015 robbery gone wrong have launched separate appeals against their convictions and sentences.

Johnny Mackey, Armando Sergeant and another man—whose name has been withheld as he was arraigned as a minor—were charged with the murder, attempted murder and attempted armed robbery of former Queen’s College elementary teacher Joyelle McIntosh.

Prosecutors said the teenager, who was 17 at the time of the incident, along with Mackey and Sergeant, attempted to rob Ms McIntosh at gunpoint of her $6,000 car in November 2015.

They said that during the failed carjacking, the victim was shot multiple times in her head and body. She later crashed into a wall at the intersection of Parkgate and Village Roads and died of her injuries at the scene.

During the trial, all three men pleaded not guilty to the offences. Nevertheless, a jury returned a guilty verdict of murder for Mackey and the then 17-year-old.

Sergeant was found not guilty by a vote of eight to four of murder, but was found guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter.

The jury also returned unanimous guilty verdicts for all three accused on the attempted murder, conspiracy to commit armed robbery and attempted armed robbery charges they each faced. However, Senior Justice Bernard Turner dismissed the jury’s unanimous guilty verdict against Sergeant concerning the attempted murder charge, after his attorney challenged it due to it being inconsistent with another conviction stemming from the same matter.

After the trial, Mackey was sentenced to life imprisonment while the then 17-year-old was sentenced at the Queen’s pleasure, a phrase used to describe detention in prison for an indefinite length of time.

Sergeant on the other hand, was remanded to 18 years in prison for manslaughter.

On Friday, Sergeant’s attorney, Christina Galanos, said he was appealing his conviction on the grounds the trial judge erred when he admitted Sergeant’s “purported confession statement” into evidence.

She noted the basis of the prosecution’s case against Sergeant was that around 8pm on the night in question, Ms McIntosh was driving along Parkgate Road with her son when they noticed an individual lying in the road. Ms Galanos said the teacher then swerved to avoid hitting the individual. She said Ms McIntosh’s son, who was the only eyewitness to the event, also testified that he heard glass shattering and thought that his mother had been shot to her neck. Ms Galanos said according to the Crown, the young man saw his mother holding her neck before she lost consciousness and hit a wall.

Ms Galanos said Sergeant was arrested “roughly” six days after the incident and questioned under caution. She said during an interview with police, which Sergeant claimed was forced, he admitted being on Parkgate Road with his two-accused and acknowledged that a female was shot while driving her vehicle that night.

“The case for the intended appellant is that he knows nothing about the matter; the defence was one of alibi,” she stated. “He indicates that he was abused and oppressed to give the statement and that he was questioned on other matters. He was told that if he cooperated with the matter involving the teacher, the other two matters would be dropped.”

Ms Galanos added that Sergeant received an abrasion above his elbow while in police custody. She noted the Crown led no evidence to establish how her client sustained the injury and further argued that the trial judge should have concluded that the bruise was “consistent with the application of force by police”.

She claimed Sergeant “challenged the admissibility” of his record of interview and statement because he was beaten and injured while “hassling” with an officer who dragged him across a rug.

“There is nothing in the confessions that can support (his) convictions in the unique circumstances of this case because nowhere in the confession statements is it established that Sergeant knew or foresaw the likelihood of the use of a gun before the offences were committed,” she said.

Ms Galanos also represents Mackey in his appeal. She noted that the prosecution’s case against him was based on the “purported confession” that he laid down in the road because he had caught a cramp and the fact that he was also picked out during an identification parade by Ms McIntosh’s son.

She said two days after the shooting, Mackey was arrested, but was released after he denied the offences when he was questioned by police.

“On November 19, he was again questioned and allegedly admitted that he was with (his co-accused) and that he laid down in the street because he had caught a cramp,” she said. “He also allegedly admitted to seeing and approaching the vehicle.”

Ms Galanos said Mackey also alleges brutality since he was “at home sleeping when the police kicked his door down and officers came inside of his room, grabbed him and stomped him in his head”.

She insisted his verdict was unreasonable “having regard to the evidence” and contended the trial judge erred when he failed to give the jury a lucas direction or an adequate alibi direction in his case.

Romona Seymour-Farquharson represents the alleged shooter. During her submissions, she said she believed “inconsistencies transpired” during her client’s interview with police that rendered his verdict unsafe.

“According to the Crown’s witnesses, Officer Evans spoke with the (then teen)...he said he was given the (teen’s) mother’s number, name and contact. He then said he tried to make contact; however, he just got a voicemail. There is no evidence that he left a message,” she stated. “He said he went back to the room (where) he informed (the teen). It was at this point, he says in the interview suite, that (my client) confesses and states to him that he...shot a female around 8.30pm on Parkgate Road.”

Mrs Seymour-Farquharson said her client was appealing his sentence on the grounds the trial judge erred in allowing the evidence of his confession to go before the jury. She further asserted there was insufficient evidence for the jury to convict her client which proved the verdict was “unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence.”