Paper mix-up causes appeal court to reduce man's sentence
Published:Thursday | March 3, 2011 | 12:00 AM
Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter
The Court of Appeal has reduced the sentence of a man who was convicted of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition because, through no fault of his own, the papers in his case took two years to reach the court.
Oneil Henry, 31, labourer of a Kingston address, had his 12-year prison sentence for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition reduced to 10 years.
The court said, for some unexplained reason, it took close to two years for the papers in the matter to reach the court and, on the two previous occasions when it came before the court, it had to be taken out of the list, apparently through no fault of the applicant.
reduction appropriate
The court said in those circumstances, it considered it appropriate to reduce the sentence.
Henry had appealed against his conviction and sentence but his appeal against conviction was dismissed.
Two policemen had testified at his trial that about 4 p.m. on April 22, 2005, they responded to reports of a number of gunshots being fired in the Rockfort area, Kingston 2. The policemen said they saw Henry walking along Glasspole Avenue carrying a firearm. Henry looked in their direction, dropped the firearm and ran into a yard. The policemen took up the firearm and chased Henry. He was found in a bathroom and was taken into custody.
Supreme Court judge Lennox Campbell convicted him of the offences and he was sentenced on December 21, 2006. He was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment for illegal possession of firearm and four years for illegal possession of ammunition. The judge ordered that the sentences were to run concurrently.
grounds of appeal
Henry appealed on the grounds that he was wrongfully identified by the policemen and the Crown had failed to put forward any "concrete piece of evidence" to link him with the offences for which he was tried. When the appeal came for hearing, attorney-at-law Leroy Equiano said he was unable to advance any argument in support of the grounds filed by Henry. Equiano asked the court to give some consideration to the question of the sentences.
The court found that the sentences were within the usual range of sentences for the offences for which Henry was convicted, particularly in light of the fact that he had pleaded not guilty and was convicted after a trial. The court said the sentences were not manifestly excessive.