Man denied bail for ammo possession
Published:Monday | August 23, 2021 | 12:05 AMTanesha Mundle/Staff Reporter
A man who was sentenced to two years and nine months for having 50 rounds of ammunition at his home, has been denied bail pending an appeal of his conviction and sentence.
Ramon Seeriram, who claimed he had found the box with ammunition at his house and had lost track of it, was sentenced last month for illegal possession of ammunition after he was found guilty in the Gun Court.
According to Seeriman’s account of the incident, he found the box of ammunition in his home years ago, which was among items that he had in storage for a friend, who later died. At the time when the box was found, he had planned on turning it over to a police officer, but he could not reach the officer and eventually lost track of the box during a relocation exercise.
Seeriman asserted that he did not know that the box was still in his house.
However, at the time when the box was found by police, he was not a licensed firearm holder, hence he was arrested and charged.
Following his sentence, Seeriam, through his attorney-at-law, Hugh Wildman, filed an appeal against the conviction and sentence.
Wildman then made a bail application in the Court of Appeal on August 3, on the basis that there were exceptional circumstances in the case. However, Justice Patrick Brooks dismissed the application.
The judge indicated that he was not satisfied that there is a strong probability of success on appeal or any other factor that would amount to exceptional circumstances.
Wildman had sought bail for Seeriman on several grounds, including that it was very likely that his client’s conviction would be overturned because the learned trial judge had failed to consider, or properly consider, the issue of mens rea (intent to commit the offence) or recognise the serious gaps in the provenance of the ammunition that was produced to the ballistics expert and to the trial court, and as well as his client’s good character.
The attorney further contended that even if the conviction was not overturned, it was very probable that his conviction would be set aside, as the learned trial judge failed to consider, or sufficiently consider, his client’s good antecedent reports and had, as a result, erred in imposing a custodial sentence, which was unwarranted in the circumstances.
Crown Counsel Vanessa Campbell, however, argued that there were no exceptional circumstances in this case. She submitted further that the “mere possibility of success was not sufficient to constitute exceptional circumstances”.