Appeal court cuts conman’s sentence by half due to judge’s error

The Court of Appeal has found that a parish court judge had erred in sentencing serial convicted trickster, Ray Morgan, to 12 years in prison, which was manifestly excessive and instead has slashed the sentence by half.

The ruling, which was handed down last Friday, comes three years after Morgan had completed serving a term of 10 years in prison before his appeal was heard. Based on the court’s calculation, Morgan would have only served four years and six months in prison after he was credited with a one-year deduction and six months for time spent in prison.

Accordingly, the appellate court declared that Morgan’s constitutional right to have his appeal heard within a reasonable time was breached.

The panel of judges, comprising Justices Marva McDonald Bishop, Jennifer Stewart and Kissock Laing, found that the trial judge had erred in imposing consecutive sentences of 12 years, as a parish judge has no power to impose three consecutive sentences.

The judges in the published judgment cautioned the lower court judges to exercise great care in imposing consecutive sentences and be guided by the principles identified by the authorities and in the case.

“When there is doubt as to whether the parish court can impose an appropriate sentence that is not unduly lenient, the prosecution should consider whether the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court should be engaged,” they said.

Morgan has a relevant criminal record dating back some 33 years prior to 2011, consisting of 72 previous convictions for offences such as fraud, larceny, and forgery and in 2022 pleaded guilty to defrauding veteran reggae singer Marcia Griffiths of approximately $4.8 million.

The Privy Council had forced the Court of Appeal to determine Morgan’s appeal on sentence after the Court of Appeal in 2021 had refused his application to appeal his sentence on the basis that it was “purely academic” since he had already served his time, although his complaint against the sentence had “merit”.

In respect to the appeal on conviction, the Court of Appeal had ruled that Morgan had abandoned his appeal as the grounds of appeal were not filed within 21 days with the clerk of the courts.

Morgan was given four consecutive sentences of three years’ imprisonment in the parish court on February 11, 2011, by then-Resident Magistrate Sonia Bertram Linton after he was convicted under the Larceny Act of four counts of obtaining money by false pretences.

Morgan, who was unrepresented, gave verbal notice of appeal against his conviction and sentence. He was required to file the grounds of appeal within 21 days with the clerk of the courts in the parish court.

However, in an administrative error, prison authorities sent the grounds of appeal, prepared in time, to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal instead of the clerk of the courts.

Despite several attempts for his appeal to be heard, Morgan was not informed of the error until 2017, which meant that the filing of the appeal was not done.

Justice Patrick Brooks, president of the Court of Appeal, and Justices Jennifer Straw and Carol Edwards, who had refused the appeal in 2021, said it would not be in the interest of the administration of justice, bearing the time that had passed, to attempt to unearth the record from the parish court.

Morgan, who was denied leave to appeal at the Privy Council, subsequently sought permission through his lawyer via special leave.

JUSTICE SYSTEM CRITICISED

The Privy Council, after hearing the matter, criticised the Jamaican justice system while declaring that Morgan had suffered “a serious miscarriage of justice”. The top court ordered that the matter be heard locally on the grounds that consecutive sentences were manifestly excessive.

The matter was as a result heard by the Court of Appeal on October 14 and 15 of last year.

King’s Counsel Terrence Williams, who represented Morgan, argued that the 12-year sentence was manifestly excessive and that the trial judge did not have jurisdiction to order consecutive sentences.

He also submitted, among other things, that the sentence not only usurped the powers of the Supreme Court but breached the totality principle.

Williams said that “the totality principle dictates that the aggregate of the sentences should not substantially exceed the normal level of sentences for the most serious of the individual offences involved”.

The lawyer had also argued a preliminary point for his client to be allowed to appeal his conviction. He submitted that the court should have allowed this appeal and that the Privy Council had found that the Court of Appeal was wrong in not extending the time for Morgan to file the grounds.

But, the Crown while conceding that the 12-year sentence was excessive, argued that the Court of Appeal had affirmed that it was permissible for the parish court to pass consecutive sentences on several counts, the aggregate of which exceeded the maximum permitted on any one of the charges.

However, the judges in their conclusion said, “On the strength of the overwhelming evidence against the appellant, we are of the view that he could not have reasonably ‘entertained any realistic expectation of success on his appeal’ against conviction.”

As it relates to his appeal against his sentence, they agreed that it had merit, even though the appeal was “purely one of law, in respect of which the learned judge’s notes of evidence could provide no material assistance”.

However, the judges opined that Morgan had demonstrated sufficient prejudice occasioned by the administrative errors of the State that prevented the timely transmission of his grounds of appeal to the court.

“The sentence imposed by the judge of the parish court was also manifestly excessive and was compounded by the delay in the appeal being heard. The result was that not only did the appellant serve his sentence in full before his appeal was heard, but he served a sentence which we have found was significantly longer than he ought to have served as punishment for his crimes,” they added.

Celine Deidrick also represented Morgan while Kimberly Dell-Williams and Tamara Merchant appeared for the Crown.

Morgan, in the meantime, has sued the State for declaration of breaches and damages.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com