By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

A MAN’S diabetes, morbid obesity, history of pulmonary emboli and warning that prison could expose him to life-threatening complications were not enough to spare him from returning behind bars for possessing an unlicensed firearm and ammunition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Thomas Jean-Baptiste’s challenge to his prison terms, revoked the bail he had been granted on medical grounds and ordered him back to the Bahamas Department of Correctional Services to complete his sentence.

Jean-Baptiste was sentenced to three years for possession of an unlicensed firearm and two years for possession of ammunition, with the sentences to run concurrently.

He had already served one month and 14 days before receiving bail pending appeal. The appellate court ordered him to serve the remaining two years, ten months and 16 days on the firearm charge and one year, ten months and 16 days on the ammunition charge concurrently.

Jean-Baptiste did not challenge his convictions. He argued only that the sentences were unduly severe and that the magistrate failed to give sufficient weight to medical evidence supporting a non-custodial or reduced sentence.

His attorney contended that imprisoning him in light of his medical conditions would be tantamount to a possible death sentence.

However, the three-member appellate panel ruled that his illnesses did not amount to exceptional circumstances requiring the court to overturn or reduce the sentences, particularly after a prison physician said the correctional institution could manage his conditions.

The court said a convict’s medical condition is a relevant mitigating factor and may justify a shorter or non-custodial sentence in an appropriate case. However, it must be weighed against the seriousness of the crime and the public interest in punishment and deterrence.

Jean-Baptiste was convicted on November 10, 2025, over an incident dating to April 11, 2023.

Police stopped him while he was driving a heavily tinted vehicle and searched the car on suspicion. Officers found a gun containing five rounds of ammunition between the visor and sunroof.

He was arrested, cautioned and later tried in the Magistrate’s Court.

Jean-Baptiste relied heavily on a report from consultant urologist Dr Robin Roberts, who warned that his combination of medical problems placed him at high risk of serious complications.

Dr Roberts said Jean-Baptiste was diabetic, morbidly obese, had suffered multiple pulmonary emboli and remained on lifelong anticoagulant medication.

He said those conditions placed Jean-Baptiste at very high risk of a severe urinary tract infection originating in the perineum and increased the danger of Fournier’s gangrene.

Dr Roberts said Jean-Baptiste had been referred to the University of Miami Medical Centre for a second opinion and that doctors there agreed with the recommended treatment.

However, Jean-Baptiste had no health insurance and lacked the finances to obtain the surgery promptly.

Dr Roberts asked that Jean-Baptiste not be sent to prison, saying he feared the inmate would be unable to maintain the personal hygiene needed to reduce the risk of a urinary infection or avoid another pulmonary embolism.

He also said imprisonment would leave Jean-Baptiste unemployed and unable to raise the money needed for surgery.

Jean-Baptiste’s attorney argued that the magistrate should have concluded from the report that imprisonment was inappropriate.

The Court of Appeal accepted that serious medical conditions must be carefully considered at sentencing and that a court may impose a reduced or non-custodial sentence where the circumstances justify it.

However, it said medical hardship must be balanced against the gravity of the offence, the need for public protection and the wider goals of punishment and deterrence.

The court placed greater weight on the assessment of Dr Scavella, a physician assigned to the correctional institution, who said the prison commonly treated the diseases affecting Jean-Baptiste.

Dr Scavella said Jean-Baptiste could be transferred to Princess Margaret Hospital for specialised treatment if an emergency arose.

He recommended that Jean-Baptiste be provided with a bed, placed on a daily exercise programme to maintain proper circulation and given access to bath and toilet facilities.

The court said Dr Scavella’s opinion carried greater weight because he was familiar with the prison’s medical capabilities.

It also said there was no evidence that Dr Roberts had inspected or assessed the correctional institution’s facilities before warning against imprisonment.

Dr Roberts’ report was dated September 8, 2025, and the court said it had received no evidence that he examined Jean-Baptiste after that date or that Jean-Baptiste obtained an updated report from another doctor.

Jean-Baptiste was granted bail on December 18, 2025, based on his medical conditions and satisfied the conditions six days later.

However, the court stressed that the test for bail pending appeal differs from the test used when deciding whether to disturb a lawful sentence.

It said the grant of bail on medical grounds did not determine whether his prison terms were excessive.

The court distinguished Jean-Baptiste’s case from an earlier firearm appeal involving Ronald Ralph Moorhead Jr, whose prison terms were reduced to the three days he had already served.

In that case, prison authorities themselves confirmed they could not manage Moorhead’s medical condition.

By contrast, the prison doctor in Jean-Baptiste’s case said the correctional institution was equipped to treat his illnesses and could send him to hospital if specialised care became necessary.

The court found that the magistrate had considered reports from both Dr Roberts and Dr Scavella before imposing sentence.

It said there was no basis to conclude that the magistrate overlooked the medical evidence or that Jean-Baptiste’s conditions justified replacing his prison terms with shorter or non-custodial sentences.

The panel also ruled that the terms imposed fell well within the lawful and commonly used sentencing range for illegal firearm and ammunition offences.

The court referred to previous rulings stressing the seriousness with which Bahamian courts must treat illegal firearms.

“The gravity of gun crime cannot be exaggerated. Guns kill and maim, terrorise and intimidate,” one passage cited in the judgment said.

The court said Parliament intended firearm offences to attract custodial sentences, with magistrates empowered to impose terms ranging from 12 months to ten years for unlawful possession.

It said sentencing courts must consider the type and quantity of firearm or ammunition involved, how the weapon was used, the offender’s apparent intention, criminal record and other aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court found Jean-Baptiste’s three-year and two-year concurrent terms were within the range regularly imposed in similar cases and disclosed no legal error requiring appellate intervention.

It said that should Jean-Baptiste’s condition deteriorate during imprisonment to the point where the prison could no longer provide adequate care, he could seek relief through the Prerogative of Mercy.

The court therefore dismissed the appeal, affirmed the convictions and sentences and revoked his bail.

Sheanda Cooper-Rolle represented Jean-Baptiste, while Janet Munnings appeared for the Commissioner of Police.