St. Lucy Shootout Convicts Seek Overturn of High Court's Ruling: Analysis of Appeal Hearing

Four years after being sentenced to 25 years in prison for a 2018 shootout in St Lucy that endangered the lives of several people, Andre Lord Evil Jackman and two others are before the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn the High Court’s ruling.

Jackman, Kaeron Sylvian Moore and Shane Hakeem Omar Babb — who appeared in court on Tuesday under heavy police and prison security — were sentenced in 2021 for possessing an illegal firearm and unlawfully and recklessly engaging in conduct that placed Reshawn Greaves and Michael Abbott in danger of death or serious bodily harm on September30, 2018. Moore and Babb were also found guilty of damaging a house belonging to Chrisandra Greaves during the shooting incident.

During the appeal hearing, Jackman’s lead attorney, Michael Lashley, KC, argued that trial judge Justice Carlisle Greaves failed to provide a balanced summation and overlooked “inconsistencies” in the testimonies of the main witnesses for the state.

Lashley also told the three-member panel of appellate judges, headed by Chief Justice Leslie Haynes, that the trial judge sought to instruct the prosecutor on what to ask a witness. “That is not his role,” the King’s Counsel contended, a position acknowledged by the court.

The senior counsel also submitted that the trial judge’s interventions, when considered collectively, undermined the fairness of his client’s trial.

Lashley further claimed that Justice Greaves, in his summation to the jury, failed to mention a key part of a state witness’s testimony, in which she stated that she did not witness the shooting.

In her brief submission, Sade Harris, who appeared in association with Lashley, focused on the sentence meted out by Justice Greaves, which she described as excessive considering his starting point of 15 years and the standards for adjusting downward or upward.

Referring to a Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) decision, Harris explained that establishing a sentencing starting point helps ensure consistency and prevents arbitrary sentencing.

She argued that the trial judge did not follow proper sentencing procedures, particularly when he increased the starting point from 15 years to 25 years.

Harris further disagreed with Justice Greaves’ chosen starting point, suggesting that a 12-year baseline would have been more appropriate.

The lawyer contended that the judge focused more on the offence rather than considering factors related to the offenders themselves.

The appeal proceedings continue Wednesday with submissions from attorneys for Moore and Babb, Shadia Simpson and Verla De Peiza, respectively, followed by Senior Crown Counsel Neville Watson for the State.