Trial judge should have freed Ellis after the jury delivered verdict

The Court of Appeal said it released former murder accused Pedro Deroy Ellis last November because it was “not convinced” that his continued detention could be “justified”.

The 38-year-old Ellis had been accused of the May 5, 2013 stabbing death of Antonio Harewood. After his trial ended on October 25 he was again remanded to prison by the trial judge Justice Carlisle Greaves after a 12-member jury found him not guilty of murder and was unable to reach a verdict for manslaughter.

Ellis’ lead attorney Queen’s Counsel Larry Smith, along with legal representatives Kashka Hemans, Desiree S. Browne and Jamelia Smith appeared before a three-judge panel and appealed Justice Greaves’ decision against bail. They successfully argued that their client was “improperly imprisoned” given jury’s decision.

In an eight page decision the panel of judges – Chief Justice Sir Marston Gibson, Madam Justice Kaye Goodridge and Justice William J. Chandler – made it clear that their discussions was not concerned with the matter of the “judge’s exercise of the discretion” relating to the grant of bail as they did not consider it necessary to dispose of the appeal which was filed on November 12, 2019 via a certificate of urgency.

The undisputed fact, according to the judges was that Ellis was arraigned on a single count indictment for murder. The jurors, they said, returned a unanimous not guilty verdict for murder but there was no agreement on an alternative verdict for manslaughter and as such were released of their duty.

“We accept that the appellant [Ellis] was not acquitted of manslaughter by way of a verdict returned by the jury. The jury, having been unable to agree and having been discharged, it was perfectly permissible for a new indictment for manslaughter to be proffered against the appellant for him to be put in charge of a jury in that respect.

“However, no such action was taken by the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) and thus the legality of the appellant’s continued detention assumed critical importance,” the panel said.

It said it also considered whether the trial judge in light of the conclusion of the trial and release of the jury was entitled to exercise further jurisdiction over Ellis and remand him in custody pending a decision by the DPP.

“Again, we must answer in the negative. In our opinion, the judge’s jurisdiction is invoked when the accused is properly arraigned on an indictment before him or her.

“Therefore, the prudent course open to the judge was to order the release of the appellant. Thereafter, it was a matter for the DPP to decide whether any further action was required.

“We are not convinced that the appellant’s continued detention could be justified in the circumstances . . . . For the foregoing reasons we allowed the appeal and ordered the immediate release of the appellant” the Appeal Judges ruled.

They however made it clear that the issue of whether or not Ellis should be retried was a matter for the sole discretion of the DPP.

Subsequent to Court of Appeal’s written decision the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) Barbados’ highest court dismissed Ellis’ appeal against the refusal of the courts in Barbados to grant him bail, as he was no longer in detention.

“Ellis was released from detention and has since been a ‘free man’. The issues, which had been raised for consideration by the CCJ, had, therefore, become merely academic and no exceptional circumstances arose warranting the court to still hear the appeal. In the circumstances, the court dismissed the appeal,” the CCJ said yesterday.