Woman sentenced for pouring hot water on man denied bail

A WOMAN who was sentenced to almost three years in prison in June for pouring hot water on a man was last month was denied bail by the Court of Appeal, pending an appeal.

The applicant, Francis Bartley-Downer, was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent in the Manchester Circuit Court in March. She was sentenced on June 29 to two years, 11 months, and 25 days.

A week later, she filed an appeal to contest the sentence and conviction.

Based on the recently published judgment, Bartley-Downer poured boiling water over the victim while he was sitting looking into a book in an unprovoked and premeditated attack. This caused the victim to suffer a frightening and painful ordeal, extensive physical scarring, as well as psychological and emotional scarring.

Bartley-Downer, however, sought bail on exceptional or special circumstances while pointing to her age and medical conditions, which raised the issue of whether a custodial sentence was appropriate, and uncertainty surrounding the availability of her full trial transcripts before her sentence ends.

The judgement, however, did not indicate the applicant’s age.

According to a social enquiry report presented at her sentencing hearing, Bartley-Downer had five surgeries to her abdomen and she still suffers from discomfort.

“Presently, she is asthmatic, diagnosed with ulcer stomach, developing kidney issues, frequent urination, back pain, swelling of knees, and a gum issue for which she received surgery on April 17, 2023. She is also slated for an eye surgery and diagnosed with hypertension and high cholesterol,” the report further stated.

MINI PHARMACY

The report likened the number of medications that she had to a “mini pharmacy”.

Bartley-Downer, in her affidavit, averred that the sentence passed on her was excessive, considering her age and medical condition, and outlined her fear that imprisonment would cause her to be denied the eye surgery she was awaiting.

However, Justice David Fraser, after hearing arguments in the case, refused the bail application, noting that the circumstances in her case did not amount to exception or special circumstances.

“The review of the relevant circumstances in this matter has not disclosed that there is a likelihood of success in the applicant’s appeal.

“Neither has it been shown that the medical conditions of the applicant and any outstanding surgery required by her cannot be managed or accessed while she remains in custody,” the judge concluded.

Furthermore, he noted that “the availability of the sentencing portion of the transcript makes it likely that an order for the prompt preparation and production of the rest of the transcript could ensure that the appeal comes on quickly for hearing”.

The judge had also factored in the grounds of appeal but found that the current grounds did not amount to being a special circumstance.

The grounds include that (1) the verdict of the jury is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence; (2) the medical evidence or conditions advanced and set out in the social enquiry report were not taken or sufficiently taken into account or given any or any adequate weight by the learned trial judge in the sentencing process; and (3) that the evidence of good character advanced in relation to and on behalf of the applicant was not taken or sufficiently taken into account or given any or any adequate weight by the learned trial judge in the sentencing process.

OTHER GROUNDS

Other grounds were that the learned trial judge erred in law in refusing to admit or allow character evidence proposed to be given by the applicant’s son or that the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances of the case.

However, Bartley-Downer’s lawyer, Donald Gittens, conceded, after examining the transcript for the sentencing aspect, that the first ground of appeal could only proceed on the basis that the medical evidence was not sufficiently taken into account or given any adequate weight and that grounds three and four could no longer be sustained.

Further, he accepted that the fifth ground lodged in support of the application for bail that “the applicant has a real prospect of success in the grounds filed so far against sentence”, could no longer properly be advanced as some of those grounds had been eroded by the facts and events that transpired at the sentencing hearing as revealed by the transcript.

Gittens, however, maintained that the consideration must be given to the peculiar factors of the age and medical conditions of the applicant and the uncertainty surrounding the availability of the transcript.

But Crown Counsel Lorian Tugwell, in her arguments, underscored that while there are conditions that are supported by the Bail Act in granting bail to a convict, the “overarching” consideration is whether there are exceptional circumstances to move the court to postpone the applicant’s sentence.

Tugwell further argued that the serious and aggravated nature of the offence coupled with the fact that community members had called for justice for the victims rather than leniency for Bartley-Downer supported the opposition to bail.

With respect to the medical concerns, she said the applicant’s medical conditions were largely lifestyle diseases that could be controlled by a proper diet and exercise and, therefore, did not constitute special circumstances sufficient to provoke the court’s discretion to grant bail pending appeal.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com