Romein Browne v The Attorney General of Anguilla et Al
| Jurisdiction | Anguilla |
| Judge | Moise, J. |
| Judgment Date | 14 June 2024 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2024] ECSC J0614-1 |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO: AXAHCV2023/0017 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla) |
His Lordship The Honourable Justice Ermin Moise
CLAIM NO: AXAHCV2023/0017
EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(CIVIL)
Murder — Mandatory life sentence — Minimum tariff — Trial judge functus officio — Fundamental rights and freedoms — Inhuman or degrading treatment — Fair trial — Protection of the law — Claimants convicted of murder and sentenced — Whether trial judge functus officio when proceeding to sentence claimants after issuing commitment warrant which imposed life sentences — Whether trial judge bound to impose life imprisonment pursuant to Section 188 Criminal Code in accordance with Section 37(2) Criminal Code — Whether Section 188 prohibits trial judge from setting minimum tariff before life sentence becomes reducible — Whether Section 37(2) unconstitutional — Whether trial judge has discretion to impose determinate sentence — Whether mandatory sentence of life imprisonment violating claimants' right to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment — Whether Section 37(2) violating claimants' right to fair trial and protection of the law — Constitution Order of Anguilla 1982, Sections 3(1)(b), 6 and 9 — Criminal Code (Chap. C140, Revised Statutes of Anguilla 2000) Sections 37(2) and 188.
Mr. Darshan Ramdhani KC, with him Mr. Carlyle Rogers for the Claimants
Mr. Anthony Astaphan KC, with him Mr. Sasha Courtney and Mr. Theon Tross for the Defendant
On 12 th June 2009, the claimants were all convicted, by a jury, for the murder of Shane Fraites. On 30 th June 2009, they were all sentenced by the trial judge on account of their convictions. The claimants have now filed an originating motion in which they seek, among other things, a declaration that their rights, pursuant to sections 3, 6 and 9 of the Constitution Order of Anguilla, have been breached. They also seek declarations setting aside their sentences and an order that they be resentenced.
After conviction by a jury for Shane Fraites' murder, counsel for the claimants in their criminal trial raised certain arguments before the trial judge. In essence, the arguments centered around the principles espoused by the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council in the cases of Newton Spence v R 1 and Peter Hughes v R. 2 These were two separate cases, from Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Saint Lucia, in which the constitutionality of mandatory death sentences were scrutinized. As it relates to the claimants currently before this court, it was argued before the trial judge that the imposition of a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for the offence of murder was subject to the discretion of the sentencing judge. It is apparent from the evidence presented that counsel for the crown was, at that time, unfamiliar with the cases of Spence and Hughes. The sentencing hearing was therefore adjourned to 30 th June 2009 in order for counsel to file submissions on sentencing. A Social Inquiry Report on each of the claimants was also ordered.
Although it is quite apparent from the transcript of the proceedings, that the trial judge did not proceed to sentence the claimants on that day, a warrant of commitment was nonetheless signed and issued by the trial judge. This warrant states as follows:
To all Police Constables or other Peace Officers in Anguilla and to the Superintendent of Prison of the Common Goal in Anguilla
The Accused [was] on the 12 th day of June 2009 convicted before the Hon. Madam Justice Tana'ania Small Davis sitting at The Valley, Anguilla, upon an Indictment for having:
On or about the 4 th day of March 2006 at West End, in the Island of Anguilla, with malice aforethought, caused the death of Shane Fraites by an unlawful act.
Murder, contrary to Section 186 (1) as provided for by Section 188 of the Criminal Code, Revised Statutes of Anguilla, Chapter C140.
AND IT WAS HEREBY ADJUDGED that:
Romein Browne (also called “ Speedaro”), Cuthwin Davis (also called “Chubby”) and Alexis Connor each be given the term of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and in respect of Alexis Connor his sentence is to run concurrent with his sentences passed at the Anguilla Magistrate Court on the 12 th April 2007 and at the High Court on 22 nd June 2007, respectively, upon his conviction of offences contrary to Section 248 (a) and Section 203 of the Criminal Code, C140, Revised Statutes of Anguilla.
This is to command you to convey the accused to the Royal Gaol, there to be imprisoned accordingly.
Given under my hand and seal this 12 th day of June 2009 at The Valley in the island of Anguilla.
This warrant indicated that the claimants were sentenced to life in prison with no minimum tariff set. It is worth noting, at this stage, that it is not customary for trial judges to sign warrants of commitment. That is normally the duty of the Registrar of the High Court. In addition to that, where a sentencing hearing is deferred subsequent to conviction, a warrant of committal pending sentence is normally issued, again at the hand of the Registrar.
In keeping with the judge's order of 12 th June 2009, counsel for the parties duly filed submissions. Social Inquiry Reports were submitted, and the trial judge conducted the sentencing exercise on 30 th June 2009. I note, at this stage, that the submissions filed by counsel for the claimants in the criminal trial were not exhibited in evidence. The transcripts reveal that the trial judge indicated on 30 th June 2009, that only a synopsis of her reasons was given in open court. She indicated that a more fulsome account of the reasons for her decision on sentencing would be provided at a later date. It is unclear to this court as to whether those reasons were ever submitted, as they were not exhibited in this case. The court must therefore rely on the transcript of proceedings for what was said.
Nothing in the transcripts addressed the issue raised as it relates to Spence and Hughes. I say so because the transcript of the decision does not mention the cases and what was specifically noted in the submissions about them. It is also apparent that the trial judge did not address the question of whether she was bound by the provisions of section 37(2) of the Criminal Code, 3 neither did she address the constitutionality of the section. This section effectively made life sentences for murder in Anguilla mandatory. The trial judge proceeded to sentence the claimants each to life in prison but set a minimum tariff before they may be eligible for early release. The claimants were each sentenced as follows:
-
(a) Romein Browne and Cuthwin Davis were both sentenced to life imprisonment of which a minimum of 30 years must be served.
-
(b) Alexis Connor was sentenced to life imprisonment of which a minimum of 20 years must be served.
One issue which is worth noting is the age of the claimants at the time of the offence. Romein Browne was 18 years old on 4 th March 2006 when Shane Freitas was murdered. Cuthwin Davis and Alexis Connor were both 16. One other issue to note, however, is the rather gruesome nature of this crime as was outlined by the trial judge during her sentencing remarks. After their sentencing on 30 th June 2009, a commitment warrant was again signed, this time by the Registrar of the High Court, reflecting the sentences which had been duly passed on that day in open court. It is also worth noting that the transcripts do not indicate that the time which the claimants spent on remand was to count towards the minimum tariffs set. However, each of the claimants were committed to prison and did not appeal their sentences.
It is against this backdrop that the claimants have filed this originating motion seeking the following relief:
-
(a) A declaration that the automatic life sentences respectively imposed on the Claimants on 12 th June 2009 are unlawful and unconstitutional as being in breach of sections 3(1)(b), 6 and 9 of the Constitution, and are therefore null, void and of no effect.
-
(b) A declaration that the Trial Judge, having sentenced the Claimants on 12 th June 2009, became functus and had no lawful authority or jurisdiction to re-sentence the Claimants on 30 th June 2009, and that the respective sentences imposed on the Claimants on 30 th June 2009 are unlawful and unconstitutional as being in breach of sections 3(1)(b), 6 and 9 of the Constitution, and are therefore null, void and of no effect.
-
(c) An order quashing the warrants of sentence dated 12 th June 2009 and 30 th June 2009.
-
(d) An order directing that each of the Claimants be taken forthwith to a Court of law and they each be sentenced in accordance with law.
-
(e) A declaration that the sentences imposed on the Claimants on 30 th June 2009, which include tariff periods of 30 years in the cases of the 1 st and 2 nd Claimants and 20 years in the case of the 3 rd Claimant, before they become eligible for parole, are unconstitutional and in breach of sections 3(1)(b), 6 and 9 of the Constitution and are therefore null, void and of no effect.
-
(f) A declaration that the only lawful sentence open to the Court to impose on the Claimants at the time of their convictions for murder on 12 th June 2009 under section 186 of the Criminal Code (then in force) was life imprisonment as provided for under section 188 and in light of section 37(2) of the said code.
-
(g) A declaration that the warrant of sentence dated 12 th June 2009 is the sentence of the Court on the Claimants following their convictions for murder as provided for under section 188 of the Criminal Code (then in force) and that the Claimants are eligible for parole after serving 15 years from that date as provided under section 12(2)(b) of the Parole of Prisoners Act.
-
(h) Damages.
-
(i) Costs.
-
(j) Such...
To continue reading
Request your trial