Review please!

The Court of Appeal has reserved its decision in a three-way matter involving two brothers from Bequest, St Philip.

Chief Justice Sir Patterson Cheltenham, Justices of Appeal Rajendra Narine and Francine Belle today heard from Principal State Counsel Krystal Delaney who along with Director of Public Prosecutions Donna Babb-Agard Q.C. have requested a review of the sentences imposed on the killers on the basis that they are “unduly lenient”.

The panel also heard from attorney for Stuart Kenny MacMillian Harewood, Michael Lashley Q.C. and defense counsel Safiya Moore who is representing Scott Colby Richardson Harewood. The two have appealed their sentences on the grounds that they were “excessive”.

Stuart was sentenced to 35 years in prison and his brother Scott to 38 years behind bars for non-capital murder in the shooting death of Derek Hunte on June 3, 2014.

Given the time that the two had already spent on remand at the time their sentences were imposed and their guilty pleas, Stuart had 6,068 days or just over 16 years remaining to serve on his sentence. His younger brother had 7,247 days or just over 19 years to spend at Her Majesty’s Prison Dodds.

But addressing the panel the state prosecutor argued that in light of the guidelines set but the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Barbados’ highest court, in the matter of convicted killer Elliston Greaves, the sentences imposed on the Harewood brothers “were too lenient and indeed the state is suggesting that they are unduly lenient”.

Delaney also pointed to recently adjudicated local murder cases where sentences ranged from life in prison to a minimum of 30 years behind bars.

“Certainly this case is not a case that is borderline manslaughter and that should be at the bottom tier of any murder sentences that we have. This case should be towards the top end of the murder scale or guidelines that we have, given the circumstances of the case,” she stated.

The prosecutor further argued that in the commission of the killing Stuart left the scene, went home, returned with a firearm which he attempted to discharge at Hunte. After he failed, he left the scene again and returned sometime later with his brother Scott. Hunte was killed as he attempted to flee from the brothers.

In light of the circumstances of the case and other factors, the Principal State Counsel deemed the offence as “especially heinous”.

“Not heinous to the point that the death penalty should have been imposed. But I certainly think that life imprisonment would be an appropriate penalty in this case. The court would have to set a minimum tariff,” said Delaney who added that when all the factors are taken into account the sentence in the state’s submission was “unduly lenient”.

“This is the sort of offence, the manner in which it was committed, that the general public would expect a much harsher sentence. Yes, I did not ask for the death penalty but the penalty can go up to life in prison. The court can impose other harsher sentences besides the death penalty.”

However the attorneys for the brothers disagreed and argued that a starting sentence of 30 years was appropriate.

Moore went on to question why the state was asking for life in prison at this stage.

“Even at the substantive hearing of this matter my learned friend didn’t ask for life imprisonment . . . In the High Court my learned friend’s submissions were that a starting point should have been 40 years. The starting point in this matter was 35. . .

“If 40 years was the request at that point in time, what has changed that we are now asking for life imprisonment at this stage. The decision of Elliston Greaves has not suddenly meant that every person who pleads guilty to murder would be subject to life imprisonment.

“We are arguing that the sentence was excessive and a 30-year starting point was appropriate in the circumstances,” Moore said, which was an argument also put forward by Lashley.

Moore also argued that her client’s case “does not fall into unduly lenient” category.

“When you look at the starting point, while we are arguing that it should be lower, we definitely think that a 35-year starting point definitely cannot be considered unduly lenient,” said Moore who maintained that the criteria for life imprisonment had not been met.

“We are saying in these circumstances this court should definitely not find that this sentence was unduly lenient and the court should instead reduce the sentence of Scott Harewood and impose a starting point of below 35 years . . .

The defense counsel added that even if the court found that the sentence was unduly lenient and should be higher “we are saying that a discount should be given in the circumstances that would not result in an increased sentence”.