BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – KEMBA SWANSTON of Keys Village, who was convicted of murder and attempted murder, delivered a compelling case of appeal yesterday (Mar. 17) before the local sitting of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal, which could lead to his conviction being overturned.
On October 10, 2006, Swanston was convicted of the murder of Dennis Chapman and the attempted murder of his brother, Gavin Henry. The incident occurred at the foot of the Four-Mile Alley in Keys Village on June 2, 2003.
The brothers were aboard a bus travelling towards Cayon, and when it stopped to allow a passenger to disembark a group of men – armed with bottled, stones, machetes – stormed the vehicle and executed their attack.
SKNVibes understands that four others – Kurt Mills, Kenneth Mills, Antoine Thompson and Leon Norford - were charged along with Swanston but, at the earliest opportunity, they pleaded guilty to manslaughter which resulted in Swanston being tried alone.
Evidently confident of his case of appeal, Swanston explained to Justices of Appeal Ola Mae Edwards, Janise George-Creque and Acting Justice of Appeal Tyrone Chong QC that his main ground of appeal is the “erroneous direction” given by the trail judge His Lordship Justice Francis Belle to the jury, as it relates to the doctrine of “joint enterprise”.
Swanston argued that after an analysis of the evidence was done, the court concluded that there was no substantial physical evidence which showed he was involved in the murder and attempted murder.
He further argued that the judge, in his summation to the jury, indicated that there was not much evidence which suggested that he stabbed the deceased. But according to the prosecution’s case, he “could have”.
This inference, he explained, left a wide gap of doubt in the prosecution’s case, and in effect the prosecution failed to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that he did in fact commit the offences for which he was indicted.
The convicted man elucidated that the trial judge erred and contradicted himself when he specified to the jury that he was the “sole factor” in the case and yet instructed the jury to deliberate on the possibility that he acted in concert with others in committing the offence.
He said His Lordship’s directions created in the jury’s mind, a direct link between him and the four others who had already been convicted of a crime stemming from the same incident. He said the effect was “detrimental to my welfare” and equates to a “miscarriage of justice”.
Another salient point made by Swanston was that the four other individuals, with whom he was originally charged, provided evidence on his behalf during the case and they testified that he played no part in the incident. Swanston argued that these witnesses admitted that they were the ones who committed the offences and they explained that he was not involved.
In her rebuttal to Swanston’s argument, Crown counsel Rhonda Nisbett-Brown said she is in agreement with the fact that he was the only person on trial. She however said that the trial judge was correct in directing the jury on the law as is relates to the doctrine of joint enterprise, since it was brought out in the case.
The Justices of Appeal inquired of Nisbett-Browne as to whether or not the trial judge instructed the jury to treat the evidence of the four defence witnesses in a particular manner, especially in light of the fact that they were possible co-accomplices with Swanston. She replied in the negative.
The Ladies and Lord also inquired of Nisbett-Browne whether or not she thought it was necessary for the trial judge to give specific directions to the jury to not simply reject their evidence merely because they were defence witnesses or because they were convicted of related offences. She agreed that this should have been done.
Swanston’s wait for the court’s verdict begins as the Justices of Appeal have reserved their decision.
