BASSETERRE, St. Kitts - SHERVIN 'SQUEAKY' GEORGE did not get the desired results he had hoped for at his appeal, but was granted leniency on his 20-year prison sentence.
George had appealed his ‘accessory to murder after the fact’ conviction as well as his 20-year prison sentence, and his case was heard last Wednesday (Mar. 14) at the Basseterre High Court, where the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court of Appeal is currently sitting.
The convicted man was represented by Senior Counsels Dr. Henry Browne and Hesketh Benjamin while the prosecution team was lead by Director of Public Prosecution Pauline Hendrickson with the Court of Appeal being headed by Chief Justice Hugh Rawlins.
George was convicted for assisting William Benjamin with the disposal of Michelle Weekes-Benamin's body after she was murdered.
In presenting argument his argument, Dr. Browne maintained that his client had nothing to do with the disposal of the corpse and that the prosecution, during the trial, did not present any evidence other than hearsay to prove that George was guilty.
The grounds for appeal which were crafted by George were:
1. No physical or forensic evidence was presented to the court indicating my involvement; and
2. The judge failed (erred) to enlighten the absence of facts and evidence to the jury effectively.
The Senior Counsel, according to the law, described an accessory after the fact as “one who knowing that a felony has been committed by another, receives, relieves, comfort, or assists the felon with the intention of impeding his apprehension or impeding his being brought to justice”.
Dr. Browne stressed that there was no factual evidence present during the trial to prove that George knew anything about Michelle’s murder.
He told the Justices of Appeal to ask themselves a rhetorical question: “Where in the evidence can it be demonstrated or was it demonstrated by the prosecution that Shervin George knew a murder or a felony had been committed?”
The Senior Counsel argued that even if George had knowledge that a murder was committed and had formed the intention to assist, that is still not enough to prove him guilty of accessory.
Dr. Browne disputed that there are only two situations upon which the prosecution’s case rested, which was both hearsay and no factual evidence presented to support them.
He also disputed that one of the situations is where a police officer testified to taking a statement from the co-accused, William Benjamin, and during the course of that statement Benjamin said he needed assistance in disposing Michelle’s body. And after claiming that he called someone, he then said, “I called Squeaky.”
“Squeaky is the second name of Shervin George, and that is one of the fundamental planks upon which the prosecution hangs its case. He [Benjamin] denied, under oath, at trial that he said ‘I called Squeaky’," Dr. Browne argued.
The Senior Counsel further argued that even if Benjamin did say “I called Squeaky”, nothing can be made of the phrase in law because it is practical hearsay in relation to George.
“It was inadmissible and evidence against George; and being inadmissible as evidence against him, it is inadmissible against him for all purposes. The inadmissibility does not transform itself into admissibility, because William Benjamin gave evidence for himself and denied that he said that,” he explained.
Dr. Browne submitted to the court that “a statement out of court inadmissible against the co-accused (George) does not become admissible because it is put to the maker while giving evidence on oath, the cleansing of its inadmissibility in order that it may be used against the co-accused.”
He then told the court that even if Benjamin did call George, there was no evidence that he [George] answered.
He said it is a known fact that George lived on Rosemary Lane, he knew the premises and he visited the area where the construction work was going on almost daily, but that does not mean he assisted with the disposal of Michelle's body.
He further said that there was no evidence that George went to Benjamin's aid, there was no evidence that he was on the scene at the point in time when the body was being buried in the septic tank and there was no evidence that he assisted even if he were present at the scene.
Dr. Browne submitted to the court that the mere presence at the scene of a crime is not evidence of participation or involvement in it.
He also argued that the prosecution, during the trial, presented no evidence that George assisted in impeding the apprehension of Benjamin.
Dr. Browne said that the other situation upon which the prosecution's case rested was a statement that police claimed George made when he was charged with murder.
He argued that the police officer that cautioned and formerly charged George with murder claimed he [George] made a statement saying, "Charge ain suppose to be so big if I give a hand."
Dr. Browne explained that George only made that statement because “he was totally surprised”.
He argued that the prosecution had to demonstrate that George knowingly gave a hand with the intention of assisting Benjamin as well as relieving him [Benjamin] and they presented no evidence of that.
The Senior Counsel also argued that the trial judge erred when passing sentence and that the time given was not only harsh but wrong in law.
He explained that, according to the law, a person found guilty of accessory after the fact should not be given a sentence exceeding two years unless there is a reason to do so.
He said that when the trial judge was passing sentence, he should have asked himself "what am I punishing him for?"
Hendrickson, in presenting her argument, agreed that the prosecution did rely on the statement made by George when given the arrest warrant, noting that it was a voluntary statement.
She also argued that George denied making the statement during the trial and the judge had to leave it to the jury to determine whether or not he did make it.
She further argued that the trial judge gave the jury clear directions on how to go about dealing with the statement.
The Justices of Appeal, before making their decision, said that the Constables, in a situation like that, should have questioned George about what he meant by his statement to try to gather evidence, or they should have taken an official statement from him in the presence of a lawyer.
They also explained that the trial judge should have given the benefit of the doubt and taken the case away from the jury because they were left to speculate on the statement and draw inferences.
They further explained that the statement made by George was ambiguous and "we all know dialect and we all know what dialect can mean".
They explained that the statement could be looked at in different ways as meaning different things, or it could be looked at as a plain statement.
They however decided to dismiss the appeal against conviction but agreed that the 20-year sentence was excessive and shaved five years off of it.
George would instead be spending 15 years in prison as opposed to the initial 20.
