After spending a decade on death row, convicted murderer Carlton Junior Hall could return to society in a little over 19 years.
In the meantime, he will have to prepare himself for life as a free man by participating in drug rehabilitaton and anger management programmes in prison.
That was the order of Madam Justice Jacqueline Cornelius on Tuesday when she resentenced Hall for the August 14, 2011 shooting death of 28-year-old Adrian Wilkinson.
“I hope this sentence reflects the abhorrence of the court [of] the unprovoked and brutal murder of Adrian Wilkinson, and that it also serves to protect the society from you while ensuring that the programmes for rehabilitation have some effect,” the judge told the convict who was 20 years old when he committed the crime.
The former 2nd Avenue, Chapman Lane, St Michael resident had been sentenced to face the gallows after being found guilty, on March 2, 2016, of killing Wilkinson at a fete in Speightstown, St Peter.
He challenged the verdict in the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal on January 23, 2019, but ordered that he receive a new sentence. Hall subsequently went to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Barbados’ highest court, which affirmed the conviction.
However, with the CCJ having ruled that Barbados’ mandatory death sentence for murder was unconstitutional, Hall had to be resentenced by the High Court.
In handing down the new sentence during a virtual sitting of her court, Justice Cornelius said that while the aggravating circumstances of the case were “grave”, they did not outweigh the mitigating circumstances, and “on a totality of all the facts”, the starting sentence of 35 years was, therefore, adjusted to 30 years.
She added that Hall had been incarcerated at Dodds for 3 936 days, which must be credited to his sentence. With that time deducted from the 30 years – the equivalent of 10 950 days – the killer was left with 7 014 days behind bars.
The prosecution had been seeking a life sentence.
But Justice Cornelius explained that after carefully considering the legal authorities, she agreed with the arguments of Hall’s defence attorneys, Queen’s Counsel Andrew Pilgrim, Kamisha Benjamin and Rashida Edwards, which were made in January this year, that his case was not one in which a life sentence should be applied.
“It does not fall within the category of cases which the court would deem extremely exceptional or so exceptional . . . this is a case for a term of years at the higher level of the starting point,” the judge said.
“It is useful, Mr Hall, to rehearse briefly the principles applicable for sentencing you for non-capital murder, for while these were originally capital cases the sentence of death is not available to the court. So, essentially, I would have been sentencing you for non-capital murder, which applies to this matter.”
Justice Cornelius, identifying the aggravating factors of the case, pointed out that Hall was found guilty after a contested trial of shooting Wilkinson in a public place “unprovoked”.
“This was a case involving a firearm. Murders involving firearms attract high sentences. The firearm was not recovered. You came armed with a firearm to the session – this is not a weighty and aggravating factor as if you had come armed with the intention to kill the deceased, but the fact was this is a weapon which you carried and did in fact use.
“The offence was in a public place in full view of onlookers such as the eyewitness and other partygoers. This is always considered an aggravating factor separate to the fact of the danger to the public for which there is no evidence, insofar as the deceased was shot by you . . . almost point-blank,” added the judge, who said another aggravating factor was the effect of Wilkinson’s death on his family.
She also noted that Hall had previous convictions and was deemed at medium risk of reoffending, but the fact he was 20 years old at the time went in his favour.
Pointing to the mitigating factors, Justice Cornelius said there was “a degree of spontaneity” in the commission of the crime.
“I do not agree that there was any significant planning. The evidence does not reveal this in relation to this deceased. You do not appear even to have known the deceased,” she told Hall.
The judge added: “Your psychiatric report describes you as a simple-minded but somewhat criminally-experienced young man, although you do not appear to have reasonable grasp of what was likely to take place in your life. I must take into account, as urged by your counsel, the fact that you have spent almost a decade on death row with all the . . . trauma, for the state to accept in the end the mandatory death penalty is unconstitutional and that you must be resentenced. It seems to me that this must be reflected in your sentence in a substantial way.
“In addition, the delay in resentencing must be considered, partially due to the restrictions of COVID and the inability to receive reports in time . . . .”
Justice Cornelius further noted that while Hall was on death row, the rehabilitation programmes at the prison were not available to him. As such, she said, he had been incarcerated without either being treated for his “possible” drug dependency or given the opportunity to pursue educational programmes, which the judge said was “most unfortunate”.
“Again, I do express the hope that on entry to prison, every remanded person would have the benefit of psychological evaluation and drug dependency or alcoholic dependency evaluation. By the time it reaches the stage of trial and sentencing, the benefits of such programmes may be not too late but certainly not as effective as if they had been immediately implemented,” she added.
fernellawedderburn@barbadostoday.bb
