BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – RAMIE Gumbs, Devon Wattley and Karim Dickenson’s convictions and sentencing for Robbery and Assault appeals against conviction were upheld by His Lordship, Justice Hugh Rawlins of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeals on September 15.
The four had spent close to two years in prison on remand before the case was tried and his Lordship took those years into consideration and they deducted from their original sentences.
Karim Dickenson was sentenced to eight years in prison while Ramie Gumbs and Devon Wattley both received a previous sentencing of 15 years each.
Following the dismissal of their appeals which were made on various grounds, his Lordship told the men that he would listen to their appeals on sentencing.
All three men stated that they each had a daughter and wanted to be given less time so they would be able to spend time with them and raise them correctly.
The number two appellant Dickenson said that at the time of his arrest his daughter was three months-old and that she is now three years.
He said that he never had any previous convictions nor were there any evidence of him being involved in any criminal activities.
“I don’t want my daughter to fall short because of my wrongdoing, I also have a sick mother and would like to be there for her,” he said.
Ramie Gumbs, the number three appellant said that his daughter is now seven years-old.
He said that since being in prison he has learned a lot while enhancing his vocabulary. He said he has also been encouraging other prisoners on educating themselves and has also tutored and taught other prisoners how to read.
“I want to be doing the same thing for my daughter,” he said.
The number four appellant Devon Wattley, said he can state many reasons why he should be freed.
Like the others he too also has a daughter and a grandmother whom he would like to be of assistance to.
In their addresses to the justices the men made strong and impressive appeals on various areas of their trial that they felt were wrongly conducted by the trial judge and witnesses.
After their appeals, his lordship commended the men on how intelligent and talented they were and stating that if he were to sit at their feet he could learn from them.
“You young men being in jail are wastes of talent, to listen to you three speak today was quite interesting,” he said.
Dickenson raised grounds of appeal which spoke of a statement in the summation by the trial judge. The statement the judge made in his directions to the jury that he raised was ‘You don’t have to be that technical, you just have to be sure, you just have to ask yourself whether you have reasonable doubt’.
Dickenson describes the statement as an ‘unfortunate expression’.
“The jury by their very nature, forms their own prejudicial opinion based on what they hear from their surroundings, the media and sometimes by the nature and gravity of one’s indictment.
“With the learned trial judge passing such a statement, “you don’t have to be that technical”, although it is an expression of integrity and well meaning could have missed its mark and played a toll on the minds of the jury. Thus, stimulating prejudices already rooted in them causing them to return with the present verdict,” Dickenson said.
Dickenson also went on to question the true meaning of one having ‘reasonable doubt’ and said it has not quite grasp in his mind what reasonable doubt means.
“With such an ambiguous interpretation combined with such an expression, ‘You don’t need to be technical, you just have to be sure’, could have given an incorrect impression and stir the jury to an unfair verdict,” he said.
In response, His Lordship said that in the sphere of criminal law, there are those directions that are accepted as proper directions and that the judge covered the directions as required by law.
“We think the summation taken as a whole would have been a complete summation for reasonable doubt. The jury obviously felt sure they had sufficient evidence to feel there was proof beyond reasonable doubt and therefore they convicted.
“We will dismiss the appeal against conviction and confirm this conviction,” Justice Rawlins said.
Ramie Gumbs, raised three grounds.
On the first count he said the trial judge failed to direct the jury properly and adequately as to the specifics of the defense that allowed the jury to arrive at their verdict.
He then referred to a statement made by a witness, Tamboura Kitwana.
Gumbs said that Kitwana said, “They (robbers) had short hair, but I wasn’t checking for all of those things.”
He also referred to the statement by the lead investigator of the case, who said the accused Ramie Gumbs had his hair plaited and that the accused Karim Dickenson had his hair unkempt.
“I consider these my lords, to be a vast contrast and literally impossible for us to have short hair in one period of time and in space of an hour to have long hair.
“It can never be overstated how essential it is for the case of the defense to adequately put to the jurors especially in such a lengthy and intricate case,” he said.
He also raised issue of wrongful exclusion of evidence and said that photographs that were taken at the scene of the crime were both presented in court and described them as the most controversial feature of the trial.
“Sometimes what is missing can tell you much more than what you see. That exclusion of evidence deprived the court and defendants of a fair and just trial,” Gumbs said.
His third and final count was the error in law in reference to the count of possession with a firearm with intent to endanger life.
Gumbs said that although this count was withdrawn it could have had effect on the jurors.
However, his lordship said that the grounds raised would not have prejudiced the case.
“Not including the photographs in the trial would have not in itself be prejudicial to the hearing, we are not of the view that these exclusion of evidence would have been prejudicial,” he said.
The number four accused, Devon Wattley in his appeal raised one ground of the admissibility of hearsay evidence.
“Calvin Amory said he received information on Sebastian Street, that our vehicle was on Sebastian Street on the night of the incident. No one in the case nor were there any physical evidence of someone saying they told Amory this. And that should not have been admissible as evidence against the accused,” Wattley said.
Justice Rawlins said that it was not just that evidence which lured in the identification or identity of the vehicle.
“Notwithstanding that the judge should have given the jury a warning on that evidence,” he said.
The number one accused, Jamal Parris who was represented by lawyers Hesketh Benjamin and Henry Browne was vindicated of his conviction when he won his appeal on the grounds that the prosecution failed to provide evidence that suggest he was a part of the robbery and that he was aware of it.
