By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

STEPHEN “Die” Stubbs has a right to life regardless of a conviction for a policeman’s murder, his lawyer argued yesterday in day two of Stubbs’ Supreme Court sentencing.

Murrio Ducille, in his mitigation plea on behalf of his client for whom the death penalty is being considered, referred to Privy Council rulings and those of neighbouring jurisdictions that have supported the “presumption of an unquestionable right to life” in cases in which the death penalty is imposed.

In addressing sentencing by Justice Roy Jones, Mr Ducille informed the court that the “right to life” was one of many factors the Privy Council had set out for judge’s to consider, the other’s being, but not limited to, the extremity of the murder, the question of the convict’s ability to be reformed, and whether or not justice could only be met through death of the convict.

Before addressing these points, Mr Ducille first noted that the case had long passed the constitutional threshold for trial within a reasonable time as the case had been before the courts for 14 years, since March 1999.

He noted that Justice Jones himself had agreed in a ruling prior to the commencement of trial that there was an unreasonable delay in the case, though ruling that a fair trial was still possible.

He likened his client’s waiting for finality in the case to the case of Pratt & Morgan vs the Attorney General of Jamaica, in which a man on death row for more than five years had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment.

The lawyer added that procedures in such sentencing matters ought to be taken into consideration, arguing that “the death penalty has not been sought, in my submission.”

“The fact that the prosecution has not sought it, take it (death penalty) off the card period,” he added, noting that the prosecution did not comply with practice directions to serve them notice of that intent, which was outlined in directions by former Chief Justice Sir Burton Hall in 2006.

He admitted that the court had ruled that it would still consider the death penalty at the court’s discretion.

Mr Ducille then addressed the “right to life”, and noted that the Bahamas, in adhering to the directions of the Privy Council, amended its laws removing the mandatory death penalty because of the country’s highest court placing emphasis on every human’s “right to life.”

He also noted that the respective criminal appeal courts of St Lucia and St Vincent & Grenadines have adhered to this presumption of life in allowing appeals where the death penalty was imposed by the court.

“Stephen Stubbs, therefore, has a right to life and this is not rebutted by a conviction for murder,” the lawyer said, adding that the Crown did not bring any arguments “for this presumption to be misplaced.”

Mr Ducille also addressed the issue of categorising Stubbs’ case as the worst of the worst because of the victim involved. He referred to the St Lucian appeal case of Mitchell Joseph, who was involved in the killing of a policeman.

The lawyer submitted that the ruling spoke for itself that the “catergorisation of murder, would not in or of itself, make it the worst of the worst.”

He noted that the appeal was allowed against the imposition of the death penalty.

While noting that it is serious for a police officer to be murdered in the execution of his duty, it did not make this particular case egregious and added that death should only be considered in cases “where there is no hope for reform.”

Mr Ducille told the court that in his client’s probation report, prison officers noted that his client had not had an infraction at Her Majesty’s Prison since his confinement.

He further asked the court to acknowledge the report’s content of his client seeking employment prior to conviction for the current offence and the supportive role he has played in the life of his children.

Mr Ducille dismissed the psychiatric report as being “inadequately prepared” and contended that remorse would naturally not be present if his client, “in his heart” believes he is innocent and wrongly convicted.

However, he also asked the court to consider the testimony of the probation officer who admitted that Stubbs did express empathy for the victim’s family and their loss.

Regarding his client’s past convictions in the 1990’s prior to being charged with murder, Mr Ducille submitted that they were not offences similar to murder and that the probation report did not categorise him as “worst” or beyond reform.

In arguing that the burden of proving aggravating factors was the responsibility of the Crown, Mr Ducille argued that death was not the only way justice could be met, as his client had been a helper to the children of Ridgeland Park where he resided.

Mr Ducille, in closing, asked the court to consider his submissions and emphasised his client’s right to life.

Stubbs, with Andrew “Yogi” Davis and Clinton “Russ” Evans, were each found guilty of murder in the March 1999 death of Constable Jimmy Ambrose and attempted murder of Constable Marcian Scott. Evans was separately charged with two counts of possession of a firearm with intent to put another in fear. He was found guilty on both counts.

Stubbs was represented by Mr Ducille and Jerone Roberts while Davis and Evans were represented by Ian Cargill and Ramona Farquharson-Seymour respectively.

According to the evidence, Constable Ambrose and Constable Scott were shot at by Stubbs and Evans after a fight in a local nightclub. Ambrose was hit and died as a result of his injuries.

Evans possessed a firearm with intent to put Constables Frank Burrows and Calvin Robinson in fear of their lives.

All three men pleaded not guilty when the charges were initially read to them. The jury returned unanimous guilty verdicts on all counts.

The remaining mitigation pleas will be heard today at 10am. Following this, the prosecution will offer its counter-arguments to support their intention to seek the death penalty.