Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter

Justice Harrison

A wait of almost 10 years for transcripts from the Supreme Court for a murder appeal to be heard, has caused the Court of Appeal to blast the system at the Supreme Court of recording trials and storing records.

However, although the Appeal Court acknowledged that the delay had infringed the constitutional right of the murder convict who had filed his appeal just two weeks after conviction, it dismissed the appeal on the ground that the case against him was strong.

"The authorities must bear the blame for the delay and need to avoid any such aberration on its appellate procedural machinery in future. Supplementary systems of recording and storing records of trials are still required and ought to be implemented in order to avoid such delays," the Court of Appeal held.

Although the appellant, Dalton Reynolds, labourer, of Donmair Close, Kingston 8, was not successful in gaining his freedom, the court ruled that by virtue of the long delay, his constitutional right under section 20 (1) of the Constitution to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, was breached.

Reynolds was convicted in the Home Circuit Court on March 20, 1997, of the murder of Carl Simpson, which occurred on February 14, 1993, at Blackwood Terrace, off Red Hills Road, St. Andrew. Reynolds was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to serve 18 years before being eligible for parole.

An application for leave to appeal against the conviction was filed in the Court of Appeal Registry on April 8, 1997. The registrar of the Court of Appeal sent a notice dated April 22, 1997, to the registrar of the Supreme Court requesting copies of the proceedings and the judge's summation. The request was not complied with.

Reynolds sought the intervention of the Independent Jamaican Council for Human Rights in 1998 and the registrar of the Court of Appeal informed the council that the transcript was being "awaited".

Leave to appeal

In 1999, Reynolds sought assistance from the Public Defender to aid him in having his appeal heard. The Public Defender contacted the registrar of the Court of Appeal on several occasions and was informed that the documents had not yet been obtained from the Supreme Court Registry.

In its judgement, the Court of Appeal stated that up to 2001, the Registrar of the Court of Appeal had not received the notes of evidence nor the summation from the Supreme Court. In 2005, a copy of the incomplete summing-up of the judge was received in the registry of the Court of Appeal. On June 28, 2006, not having received the full transcript of the summing up, the Registrar of the Court of Appeal submitted the portion received to a single judge of Appeal and leave was granted for Reynolds' appeal to be heard.

The chief court reporter at the Supreme Court sent a letter to the registrar of the Court of Appeal on September 28, 2006, stating that "during the period (1997), due to staff shortage, there was a policy whereby court reporters were only required to produce summations in non-capital murder cases and a full transcript in capital murder. The court-reporting department was not fully computerised, and so there are no diskettes which would have stored the information recorded in court." The letter further stated that two of the four court reporters who were involved in recording the evidence were no longer in the service. It also stated, that a thorough search had been made for the shorthand notes of the four court reporters, but the effort proved futile.

Prejudicial

Defence lawyers Earl DeLisser and Robert Fletcher who represented Reynolds at the hearing of the appeal in January, argued that he should be freed because the length of the delay was presumptively prejudicial and the State, not having to-date provided him with a transcript of the proceedings of the trial nor a copy of the full summing-up, infringed his rights under section 20 (1) of the Constitution which guaranteed him fair hearing within a reasonable time. The lawyers said Reynolds suffered from the uncertainty and anxiety of not knowing when his appeal would be heard and was thereby prejudiced.

Mr. Justice Paul Harrison , President of the Court of Appeal, Mr. Justice Howard Cooke and Mr. Justice Mahadev Dukharan (acting), heard the appeal and held that taking all the factors into consideration, namely the delay of nine years, there had been inordinate delay and therefore "the appellant's constitutional right under section 20 (1) was infringed."

Summation

It was the Appeal court's finding that the portion of the summation available to the court was sufficiently detailed and relevant that the court could deal with the other grounds of appeal which were argued. The court found that the summation by the late Mr. Justice Neville Clarke was comprehensive and fair and the absence of the complete summing-up did not prejudice Reynolds in any way. The court agreed with Lisa Palmer, acting senior deputy director of public prosecutions, that the case against Reynolds was strong.

The court said that the nature of the visual identification was good and the witnesses and Reynolds were well known to each other. The evidence was that Reynolds and four other men chopped the deceased 20 times. Reynolds lost his appeal against his conviction and sentence because the nature of the offence, the sentence of life imprisonment and the order that he should serve 18 years before parole were not manifestly excessive and would not be disturbed.

"In the circumstances, this court will grant his remedy due to the delay, resulting in a breach of his rights under Section 20 of the Constitution by ordering that his sentence shall commence to run from March 17, 1997, the date of his conviction," the court held.