Court reserves decision in firearm appeal

The Court of Appeal has reserved its decision on whether a St George man convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison for firearm and ammunition offences should be granted a new trial or a reduced sentence.

 

A jury found Dennis Alphonso Sheriff Maynard, of Roach Village, St George, guilty of having a .40 Beretta semi-automatic pistol, a .22 calibre Taurus semi-automatic pistol, 39 rounds of ammunition, and 1.25 grammes of cannabis on October 6, 2018.

 

The appellant filed on several grounds, including that the conviction was unsafe and that the sentence was “manifestly excessive”.

 

Through his lead attorney, Senior Counsel Andrew Pilgrim, Maynard argued, amongst other things, that the trial judge erred in law by directing the jury that the appellant must be collectively convicted or acquitted of the offences.

 

Pilgrim said: “In his summation, the learned trial judge directed the jury that all four counts on the indictment required the same verdict and that they must convict or acquit the Appellant on all counts together. We submit that this was contrary to law because the jury should have been instructed to consider each count independently, and this direction effectively amounted to a direction to convict.”

 

The defence attorney contended that this was especially so in light of the testimony of defence witness Anthony Williams, who, during the trial, told the court that he directed two individuals to place two firearms in the compartment in which police found them.

 

Pilgrim said: “We say that background alone makes the direction which we convey in this case extremely significant. That is to say that the judge, in directing the jury, says they must return the same verdict on each count because there was no basis for different verdicts. We submit that the circumstances would be extremely rare in which a judge should be telling a jury that you must bring back the same verdict on all of these counts. We are saying that this should never happen, but in this case, it is manifestly clear because of what the defence witness is saying that this would be entirely inappropriate….

 

“A jury is entitled to make up its mind about each count that is before the court, and they are entitled to do that independently without fear of correction from anyone.”

 

Joining Pilgrim on Maynard’s legal team were Senior Counsel Angella Mitchell-Gittens and attorneys Summer Hassell and Errol Gaskin.

 

Principal State Counsel Romario Straker, who represented the State along with State Counsel Eleazar Williams, argued that the judge was correct in directing the jury to take such a stance as the evidence indicated that all of the items found belonged to Maynard.

 

The appellate panel of Justices of Appeal Francis Belle, Jacqueline Cornelius-Thorne and Victoria Charles-Clarke reserved their decision and adjourned the case without a set date.