Campus Trendz killer Jamar Dwayne Bynoe will not hang for the deaths of six women in the September 3, 2010 boutique fire that drew national attention, but his murder conviction will stand and he will have to go before the High Court for resentencing.
The Court of Appeal of Barbados handed down that ruling on Tuesday.
“The conviction is upheld. The sentence of death is vacated. The appellant is returned to the trial court for re-sentencing . . . at the earliest opportunity,” Appeal Court Justice Margaret Reifer said.
Bynoe’s attorney, Queen’s Counsel Andrew Pilgrim, has already served notice that he will be taking the matter to Barbados’ highest court, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), even as he raised concern about the almost three-year delay in getting the decision.
In July 2016, Bynoe, of Headley’s Land, Bank Hall, St Michael, was found guilty of six counts of murder, following the deaths of Shanna Griffith, Kelly-Ann Welch, Pearl Cornelius, Kellishaw Olivierre, Nikita Belgrave and Tiffany Harding who died in a blaze at the Campus Trendz store in Tudor Street, The City.
He was sentenced to hang, but three years later, through Pilgrim, the convicted man appealed his conviction and sentence on nine grounds before the three-member panel of then Chief Justice Sir Marston Gibson, Madam Justice Kay Goodridge, and Justice Reifer.
Giving a summary of the written judgment during a virtual sitting of the court on Tuesday morning, Justice Reifer said the panel had found there was “no merit” in the grounds of appeal.
Among those grounds was that the trial judge erred in law when she failed to stop the case as it related to murder from going to the jury, as no evidence was led of the intent necessary for the offence of murder.
Justice Reifer said the state’s case, which was represented by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Alliston Seale and Senior State Counsel Oliver Thomas, was that at the very least there was “an intention to cause mayhem, to cause serious bodily harm to effect the robbery as six persons died as a result; as part of this joint enterprise, the appellant either intended to kill or cause really serious bodily harm to the six deceased women”.
“In our view, this was sufficient to make intent for the jury’s consideration. That being said, the only issue was whether the judge’s directions were in keeping with the authorities. We have examined the trial judge’s directions and we are of the view that she did not err in her direction to the jury and that the issue of intent was rightfully placed before the jury,” Reifer added.
She also said that there was “no merit” in the challenge that the trial judge failed to adequately put the defence of the appellant or that she erred in law when she failed to facilitate the appointment of legal counsel for Bynoe who was self-represented during the trial.
“Having considered the chronology of events, the court was of the view that the trial judge’s carefully exercised discretion was reasonable. It appears to us that she balanced all the relevant considerations, including the public interest, in making her determination to continue the trial. In our view, the judge acted reasonably in the circumstances . . . .
“Our finding after reviewing the principles of law to be applied, reviewing the history of this matter, we are of the view that the judge reasonably exercised her discretion in continuing the trial of the appellant; therefore, this ground was rejected,” Reifer said.
The court concluded that the guilty verdict “was safe” and it was therefore affirmed.
“We are of the view that the verdict was one where a properly instructed jury could reasonably have rendered,” the judge said.
He will be resentenced, according to the Court of Appeal, pursuant to Section 2(a) (1) of the Offences Against the Persons Act and the Offences Against the Persons (Amendment) Act.
That decision is in keeping with the ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) that the mandatory death sentence in Barbados is unconstitutional.
Reacting to the court’s ruling,
Pilgrim expressed concern about the delay in getting the decision in his client’s matter.
“This is ridiculous. People say that the CCJ is critical of us but we haven’t been critical of ourselves. Any decision that takes this long is going to be called under serious scrutiny because it makes you wonder what were you doing all this time when you should have been deciding. So, it is just really unfortunate that it took this long,” he said.
“The Court of Appeal puts itself in a difficult position when it takes this long to give a decision about whether a person should be in prison, sentenced to hang or not . . . ,” he said as he pointed out that the appeal had been made since 2019.
“I wrote for bail for him about two months ago, and I believe as a result of my bail application this decision is now given. One wonders if I didn’t apply for bail for him if they would have not put themselves in a position to give this decision now. It certainly looks that way,” the Queen’s Counsel said. “We will challenge . . . this decision before the CCJ.”
In 2019, the CCJ dismissed the appeal of the other man convicted in the case, Renaldo Anderson Alleyne who was given six life sentences for his crimes.
The local Court of Appeal had affirmed the sentences after Alleyne’s lawyer, Arthur Holder, argued that they were excessive and his client should have received a discount because of his early guilty pleas.
Bynoe and Alleyne had firebombed the Campus Trendz store after robbing it, resulting in the deaths of the six young women.
fernellawedderburn@barbadostoday.bb
