- NORMAN GRINDLEY/DEPUTY CHIEF PHOTOGRAPHER
Justice Courtney Daye inspects a guard of honour mounted by members of the Jamaica Constabulary Force during the opening of the Home Circuit Court in downtown Kingston.
Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter
The Jamaican Bar Association (JBA) has raised objections to guidelines to be followed at sentencing hearings for convicts who can be sentenced to hang.
Arlene Harrison-Henry, president of the JBA, has described the five-point guideline as inadequate.
"Defence lawyers are concerned and disappointed that no consultation with the bar was sought before the guidelines were issued," she said.
Mrs. Harrison-Henry has written to Chief Justice Lensley Wolfe outlining the JBA's concerns and hopes that necessary amendments will be made, such as mandatory psychiatric reports of convicts.
So far, there are 34 cases involving 47 murder convicts set for sentencing in August. Lambert Watson, the Hanover man who challenged the Offences Against the Person Act on the ground that the mandatory death sentence for capital murder was unconstitutional, is one of the men to be sentenced.
PRIVY COUNCIL RULING
The United Kingdom Privy Council ruled last year that the sentence was discretionary and only judges had the power to determine what sentence should be passed.
Following the Privy Council's ruling, the Government amended the act in February this year. All persons who were sentenced to death prior to the amendment will have to be taken back to the Supreme Court for sentencing. The JBA and the Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights were instrumental in calling on the Chief Justice to implement the guidelines.
"There is so much that was not done or said in the guidelines and we are still hoping that we can have an input," Nancy Anderson legal counsel of the Independent Jamaican Council for Human Rights (IJCHR) said on Friday.
PRACTICE DIRECTION
The guidelines which were dated June 8, 2005 , states that "By order of the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Puisne Judges of the Supreme Court, the following practice direction is hereby issued:
"There shall be a sentence hearing whenever any person is convicted of murder falling within section 2 (1) (a) to (f) of subsection (1A) of the Offences Against the Person (Amendment) Act. The hearing shall be before a judge sitting alone in open court. Prior to the sentence hearing, the court shall request a social enquiry report and any other reports deemed necessary in assisting to determine the proper sentence. The defence and prosecution shall, seven days prior to the hearing, file and serve upon the other side, copies of the statements or reports of any witnesses intended to be called at the hearing. The hearing shall be held within three weeks of the date of conviction."
Mrs. Harrison-Henry disclosed that the view of the JBA was that the guidelines should also include persons convicted of offences which were punishable with life imprisonment or a term of years under the act.
She said ever since the Privy Council made its ruling in October last year, the JBA had seminars in association with the IJCHR and solicitors from the English firm of Simons Muirhead and Burton and out of those seminars, proposed guidelines were sent to the Chief Justice. She said at the seminars they studied the guidelines in other countries including the Eastern Caribbean which made it clear that psychiatric reports were necessary .
"It must be mandatory that psychiatric reports be presented in every case because the reports will be of tremendous assistance at sentencing," she added.
Objections are being raised to the three-week hearing after conviction because the lawyers say the minimum period should be from the time the reports were received so as to allow the defence reasonable time to prepare its defence.
Mrs. Harrison-Henry said that the lawyers are objecting to the practice direction for them to serve copies of statements or reports of witnesses to the prosecution and for the prosecution to do the same because they are of the view that that was a drastic change in the role of the prosecution at sentencing. She explained that such a direction could open the floodgates for the prosecution to adduce evidence other than the antecedents of the convicted person.
