Judge: President’s pleasure sentence unconstitutional

of a 15-year-old youth to incarceration at the President’s pleasure for murder, in accordance with the Children’s Act was yesterday deemed by a High Court Judge to be unconstitutional.  As a result, Justice Nolan Bereaux ordered that Otis Melville be produced in court before another High Court judge for a review of his sentence.

The decision by Justice Bereaux that the sentencing of Melville in 1996 was inconsistent with Section 5 (2) of the Constitution, amounts to a partial striking out of the offending section of the Children’s Act. Melville, of Malick, was found guilty of murdering Lenny Beckles. He was  a secondary school student when he was sentenced in the Port-of-Spain Assizes by Justice Paula Mae Weekes to incarceration at the President’s pleasure. Melville could not be sentenced to death because he was only 15 at the time of the murder. However, Madam Justice Weekes passed the sentence in accordance with Section 79 of the Children’s Act.

Melville, who has been incarcerated since 1993, four years of which was spent awaiting trial, filed a constitutional motion against the State. Through his attorney Gerald Ramdeen, Melville contended that the sentence under Section 79 of the Children’s Act was inconsistent with Section 5 (2) of the Constitution. Section 79 of the Children’s Act states: “The sentence of death shall not be pronounced on or recorded against a person convicted of an offence if it appears to the court that at the time when the offence was committed he was under the age of 18.” It also stated that in lieu of sentence, the court shall sentence him to be detained at the State’s pleasure. Justice Bereaux heard arguments from Ramdeen and State attorneys who challenged the motion.

Ramdeen contended that to sentence Melville to incarceration at the President’s pleasure’ amounted to the “executive” arm of the State acting “judicially.” The accused ought to have been sentenced at the court’s pleasure instead, he argued. In his ruling yesterday, Justice Bereaux upheld the submission and declared that the particular section in the Children’s Act was inconsistent with Section 5 of the country’s Constitution. That section outlines the procedure for giving effect to persons’ rights and freedoms.

Justice Bereaux said he would not take the liberty to strike out the offending parts of Section 79 of the Children’s Act. “I am granting a declaration that  Section 79 (Children’s Act) is inconsistent with Section 5 (2) of the Constitution. I am also ordering that the sentence of Justice Weekes be quashed and I am ordering the Registrar of the Supreme Court to fix a date when the accused shall be taken before a judge for review of his sentence.” The judge dismissed Ramdeen’s application for damages for Melville. However, the State was ordered to pay costs.