BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – THE two young men convicted of shooting and seriously injuring Army Corporal Joseph Bergan argued their cases of appeal yesterday (Mar. 16) before the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal.
Sitting at the Sir Lee Llewellyn Moore Judicial and Legal Complex, Chief Justice Hugh Anthony Rawlins, Justice of Appeal (JA) Janice George-Creque and acting Justice of Appeal Tyrone Chung lent their ears to Wayne Matthew and Maluska Williams, the appellants, following which they passed judgment.
The couple was accused of shooting Bergan in the neck while he was at Lodge Village providing security service for a CEMACO delivery truck.
After conviction, the young men received concurrent 18-year-sentences for the offences of “possession of a firearm to aid in the commission of a felony” and “robbery” and were sentenced to seven years imprisonment for “wounding with intent”, which is to run concurrent with the other sentences.
Matthew was first to do battle. Armed with a well-prepared and rehearsed script, he outlined his grounds of appeal against the conviction and sentence.
One of his main points of contention is that the unedited statement of his co-accused was allowed to be read in court, which contained information that he described as “injurious and prejudicial” to his case.
He argued that the trail judge, Justice Francis Belle, erred in not editing the statement so as to remove his (Williams’) name or any implicating evidence before it was tendered into evidence and perused by the jury.
Williams further argued that he had a constitutional right to an impartial hearing of which he feels he was deprived. The effect therefore, he said, was “insidious” and may have caused the jury to judge prematurely and inaccurately.
The appellant, by permission of the court, also impugned the statements of Reese Williams and Nigel Henry, citing, among other things, that they both were possible accomplices.
Matthew still maintains his innocence of the crimes for which he was convicted, claiming that he was “framed by men with desperate needs”.
In support of his appeal against sentence, Williams said the punishment handed down by the Basseterre High Court of Justice is “intolerable” and “harsh”.
Chief Justice Rawlins, in response to the appellant, explained that the trial judge may edit a statement at his discretion or give directions to the jury on the law and in the absence of editing, the jury was properly directed.
His Lordship furthered that there is no evidence to suggest that the judge failed to give appropriate and adequate directions to the jury, as it pertains to the law, in the evidence given by Reese Williams and Nigel Henry.
His appeals were quashed and the conviction and sentence were confirmed.
On the other hand, Williams indicated that he no longer wishes to pursue the appeal against conviction but would proceed on the appeal against sentence.
Ruefully, Williams explained to the court that he accepts full responsibility for his actions and his intention was to admit guilt at the first opportunity to do so. He explained, however, that lawyer Chesley Hamilton – who represented him – told him not to admit guilt but to fight the case; a strategy which he said he “went along with”.
Williams reiterated that he is remorseful and penitent. While he understood that his actions warrant punishment, he beseeched the court to “diligently consider my plea” and give him another opportunity to pick up the broken pieces of his life and assume the position of a productive member of society.
He gave insight into his upbringing, explaining that his parents migrated while he was yet young and left in the care of his aunt and grandmother. He said his aunt’s focus was on her daughters and his grandmother was left with complete responsibility for him.
Her ailments, he explained, prevented her from giving him the guidance he may have needed; a situation he admitted to taking advantage of. Williams said that he has taken full responsibility for his mingling with undesirables, his mistakes and the events which led to him standing in a court of law.
Since being incarcerated, Williams said he has been involved in and successfully completed programmes offered in the prison, including singing and anger management, and has already begun the process of rehabilitation.
Williams’ appeal against sentence was allowed and resulted in his 18-year sentences being reduced to 16 years each, which are to run concurrently. The Chief Justice also ordered that both Williams’ and Matthew’s sentences be served from the date of arrest (May 5, 2006).
