To hang or not to hang

IT started in 1993 with the Pratt and Morgan judgement. The British Privy Council ruled that it was unconstitutional to execute a convicted prisoner who had spent more than five years on death row. That was the Jamaican case of Pratt and Morgan. The ruling created quite an impact in the Caribbean. The then PNM Government had no choice but to commute the death sentences of 42 on death row. Then came the Trinidad and Tobago case of Darrin Thomas and Haniff Hilaire in 1998. The Law Lords went further — States must not carry out the death penalty until convicted killers have had their petitions to international human rights bodies heard. These international bodies take years to hear petitions.

In 2003, in the TT case of Roodal, the Privy Council by a 3-2 majority ruled that the death sentence was no longer mandatory and that the trial judge now has the discretion as to sentence. This ruling has created a bigger impact than Pratt and Morgan. The Roodal decision means that all those persons on death row and those killers whose sentences were commuted, can now make an application to have their sentences reviewed. That creates a further backlog to the judicial system in TT. Since the Roodal judgment, there have not been many applications for sentencing review. From tomorrow, another chapter on the death penalty will be written as Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Jamaica, have petitioned the Privy Council to hear new arguments in a bid to have the mandatory death sentence back on the law books. The cases listed are — Charles Matthews v the State (TT); Lambert Watson v the Queen (Jamaica); and Lennox Ricardo Boyce and Jeffrey Joseph v the Queen (Barbados).

Matthews was sentenced to death by Justice Carlton Best in the Port-of-Spain Assizes on December 3, 1999 for the murder of his common-law wife Louise Gittens at Olton Road, Arima, on December 9, 1994. On December 1, 2000, the Court of Appeal comprising Chief Justice Michael de la Bastide, Justice Roger Hamel-Smith, and Madame Justice Margot Warner, dismissed Matthews’ appeal against his conviction. He appealed to the Privy Council, but the Law Lords dismissed his petition on May 12, 2003 with respect to conviction, but adjourned the petition in respect of the sentence imposed on him. Following the Roodal judgement, the three Caribbean countries got together and petitioned the Privy Council for another shot at the death penalty. Beginning tomorrow and continuing until Thursday, lawyers will be engaged in battle on the death penalty. Nine Law Lords will sit on this appeal and according to Melanie Knowles of the Privy Council Office, there is nothing to show that nine Lords have ever sat on a Privy Council case.

They are Lords Bingham, president, Nicholls, Steyn, Hope, Hoffmann, Scott, Rodger, Walker and Justice Edward Zacca of Jamaica. Because of the composition of the court and the anticipated arrival of a number of attorneys from the Carib-bean, the appeal has been moved from the traditional Privy Council building to the spacious House of Lords Common Room. Security may be another reason for the shift. The Privy Council building is situated next to the Prime Minister’s office at 10 Downing Street. Lawyers and litigants must pass through the security officers to gain access to the court. With the increase in terrorists’ activities around the world and with Britain on heightened alert, added security has been implemented at Downing Street. Security will also be increased at the Parliament building where the House of Lords is situated. English Queen’s Counsel Edward Fitzgerald will lead the team for Charles Matthews, which also includes Desmond Allum SC, Douglas Mendes, Keir Starmer QC, Gregory Delzin, Rajiv Persad, Stuart Young, Ulele Burnham, and Ruth Brander. Sir Godfrey Le Quesne QC and Tom Poole will represent the State.

The Attorneys General of TT and Barbados are expected in London, while the Solicitor General of Jamaica will be present. What was the case against Charles Matthews? The prosecution’s evidence was that around 7 pm on December 19, 1994, Matthews shot and killed Louise Gittens having broken into her house at Olton Road, Arima. Matthews had lived in a common-law relationship with Gittens for a while but they had separated a short time before. Gittens had apparently struck up a relationship with another man called Pantin. Matthews was arrested on March 3, 1995. Upon being cautioned, Matthews told the police, “We had a struggle for the gun and she got shot.” Two live 12-gauge cartridges were found in the room in which Matthews was living. Matthews took the police to a forested area on the northern side of the house and handed over to them a home-made shotgun wrapped in a piece of plastic and said “this is the gun.”

Later that morning at the Arima Police Station, Matthews gave a written statement to the police in the presence of a Justice of the Peace who testified that it was properly taken. The defence case was that Matthews had no intention to kill Gittens and that her death was an accident. Matthews admitted that he went to Gittens’ home and that he had a gun and three cartridges with him. He claimed that as he went to kiss Gittens “she scramble the firearm and I scramble her arm and we start struggling for the firearm where it went off.” Gittens was shot in the chest. Matthews then ran off.