Court orders release of man who waited 10 years for transcript to appeal conviction
Published:Sunday | February 27, 2022 | 12:10 AMBarbara Gayle - Sunday Gleaner Writer
The Court of Appeal, last month, ordered the immediate release of a man who had to wait for 10 years to get the transcript of his trial so that his appeal could be heard.
Although Jerome Dixon lost the appeal against his conviction for wounding with intent, the court frowned at the fact that no explanation was given for the delay.
Dixon and the appellate court did not receive the transcript until May last year and the court ruled that the delay breached Dixon’s constitutional rights to be heard within a reasonable time and described the breach as “egregious”.
Attorney-at-law John Clarke, who is representing Dixon, said last week that his client has already filed a suit in the Supreme Court against the Government to get redress for the delay.
He said the suit was filed against the attorney general long before the appeal was heard. Clarke also said Dixon will be taking the case to the United Kingdom Privy Council to have his conviction set aside.
Dixon was sentenced in February 2011 to 15 years’ imprisonment for the offence which was committed in St Andrew on September 3, 2005.
According to reports, he entered the complainant’s house in St Andrew, stabbed her several times and slashed her throat. The complainant said she knew Dixon for about 17 years before the incident.
The court, in its judgment this month, could not fathom why a man who was convicted of wounding with intent had to wait for 10 years for the transcript of his trial to be sent to the appellant and the Court of Appeal.
It has not been disputed that the applicant’s rights as prescribed under Section 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Rights of the Constitution have been breached, the court said.
There has been a period of 10 years’ delay between the conviction in February 2011 and the hearing of the appeal in July 2021, and the delay is not attributable to the applicant in any respect, the court pointed out.
“The transcript of the trial was only obtained by Dixon and the Court of Appeal in May 2021, albeit it was received by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in June 2014. There has been no explanation as to why there is a stark discrepancy in the dates that the parties received the said transcript,” the court said.
ANXIOUS AND DISTRESSED
Dixon said in his affidavit that he was anxious and distressed that he had served his sentence without his appeal being heard. He said the prison authority had advised him to abandon his appeal because of the delay so the court could order his release.
Attorney-at-law Terrence Williams, who was instructed by Clarke, had argued that Dixon’s conviction be quashed but the court said it saw no basis for that remedy to be granted.
Williams also argued that the delay in the hearing of the appeal amounted to an abuse of the court’s process attributable to the Crown.
Prosecutors Tracy-Ann Robinson and Dwayne Green, who represented the Crown, had argued that the conviction should not be overturned.
In response, the court said, “We are of the view that there was cogent evidence leading to the conviction of the applicant and that there has been no substantial miscarriage of justice that would require that the conviction be quashed. Further, the appeal, although delayed, has been heard and considered by the court in its entirety.”
The court said based on correctional centre rules, Dixon may have been eligible for an early release date after two-thirds of his 15-year sentence had been served, dependent on the assessment of his good conduct by the commissioner or appropriate correctional officer.
“By this court’s calculation, this early release date would have been on February 21, 2021, and if he were to serve the full term of imprisonment, his latest release date would be on February 21, 2026.
“Fortunately, on February 16, 2021, the applicant was granted bail by a single judge of this court, which was one week before the early release date. In that event, he has not been subject to any breach of his right nor liberty as a result of the delay in the hearing of his appeal,” the court ruled.
TIME SERVED
The court disclosed that it had no correspondence from the correctional services as to Dixon’s eligibility for his early release.
“However, bearing in mind the egregious nature of the breach of Section 16(1) of the charter, that is the right to be heard within a reasonable time, an appropriate remedy is required.
“In our view, the full period of time between the applicant’s conviction and the disposition of his appeal should count towards his sentence, and the applicant spent 10 years imprisoned, which is equivalent to his earliest available date, should not be subjected to any further term of imprisonment,” the court ordered.
The orders were made on January 21 by President of the Court of Appeal Patrick Brooks, Justice Jennifer Straw and Justice Carol Edwards, who heard the appeal.
The orders:
“Application for leave to appeal conviction and sentence refused. The sentence shall be reckoned to have commenced as of February 21, 2011.
“It is declared that the post-conviction delay is inordinate and constitutes a breach of Section 16(1) of the charter for which he is entitled to a remedy. As a remedy for the breach, the period of imprisonment of 10 years already served by the applicant is to be treated as time served and deemed to be the full service of his release. Accordingly, he should be immediately released.”