Prosecutor: ‘It's not a get out of jail card'

A ruling by the Privy Council reducing the minimum term two murderers must serve before they can be considered for release is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card.

This from Director of Public Prosecutions, Rory Field, who last night reassured the public that murderers remain subject to a life sentence and would not automatically be freed once they had served the minimum term.

His comments came as the Privy Council in London reduced the minimum term that notorious killers Ze Selassie and Jermaine Pearman would have to serve behind bars before they could be considered for release by the parole board.

The highest court in the UK ruled that the maximum term a defendant could serve before eligibility for release on licence is 25 years for premeditated murder and 15 years for murder.

The ruling is expected to pave the way for a string of seven potential appeal cases where killers have received higher minimum terms than the Privy Council has now prescribed.

Flood of appeals?

These cases include Kevin Warner, Derek Spalding and David Cox; gunmen who have been convicted of premeditated murder, as well as Antonio Myers, Darronte Dill and Norris Simpson who have been jailed for murder.

Mr Field told the Bermuda Sun yesterday: “All convicted murderers are sentenced to life imprisonment and that has not changed.

“A sentence of life imprisonment means that even when an offender is released, the offender is released on licence subject to that life sentence and may be recalled to prison on the licence. The life sentence hangs over the offenders head until the offender dies.”

Selassie was jailed for life in September 2009 for the premeditated murder of 14-year-old Rhiana Moore.

Initially the minimum term he had to serve before he could be considered for release was set at 35 years.

The minimum term was reduced by the Court of Appeal to 28 years in 2011 and on Monday at the Privy Council was reduced again to 25 years.

Pearman too was jailed for life in January 2011 after he pleaded guilty to the murder of his estranged partner Shakeya DeRoza.

Initially the minimum term he had to serve before being considered for release was 25 years.This was reduced to 21 by the Court of Appeal and has now been further reduced by the Privy Council to 15. Mr Field added: “The Privy Council appeal in the cases of Selassie and Pearman dealt with when an offender should first become eligible for release on licence. 

“That does not mean the offender would automatically be released on the first possible date, since the release is subject to the Parole Board. That is the way the Privy Council have interpreted the current legislation. The immediate result is that the date of eligibility for release on licence has been reduced for the two appellants.”

Mr Field said the Privy Council’s ruling prompted the need to consider whether there should still be a differentiation between premeditated murder and murder in Bermuda.

While the Attorney General Chambers said yesterday that it would review the Privy Council’s ruling and consider the impact it has on Bermuda’s law and sentencing regime.

Mr Field added: “There is no automatic release after 15 or 25 years imprisonment.  Release is dependent upon the decision of the Parole Board, based on several factors. It may thus be that release on licence does not in fact occur for many years after the first date of eligibility. This would be particularly appropriate if the offender is deemed a serious danger to the public.” 

Lawyer Elizabeth Christopher, who defended Selassie in 2009, told us that the Privy Council ruling was likely to prompt further appeals. She said: ‘David Cox, Antonio Myers and one more are due to be held this session, but I suspect that others are in the pipeline.

Referring to the Privy Council’s decision she added: “The decisions were made based on principles of law. It’s not that they sat down and decided what the sentences should be.

‘The principle was that the justices though the sentences were unconstitutional. It’s not the case that the Privy Council imposes their two cents on what the sentences should be.

“The decision has implications for all cases including those where the person involved has been convicted of gun offences or gang offences. Effectively a maximum has been sent down.”

Lawyer Shade Subair told the Bermuda Sun: “The Judgment is principally an extensive exercise of statutory interpretation of the legislation passed by our Parliament. It calls for life sentences to be applied in the same way that they were historically applied, save that sentencing judge is now permitted to impose an eligibility period for release within a period shorter than 25 years for pre-meditated murder and shorter than 15 years for murder. 

“The converse does not apply as the sentencing judge may not lawfully impose eligibility periods exceeding those terms. It, therefore, appears that legislative amendments are the only way in which increases in the terms for eligibility for release on licence can be lawfully imposed in future cases.”

Asked about long sentences in the context of strong public sentiment against gangs, Ms Subair said: “In this context, it is not for the Privy Council to increase sentence ranges based on the public’s outrage against gang violence. That is a matter for Parliament and the Legislature. The Privy Council has merely brought a final interpretation to the same legislative provisions passed by Parliament which has been in place since 2001.

“...It is inevitable that all sentences imposed which specify terms for eligibility for release for a period longer than 15 or 25 years (murder and premeditated murder respectively) will necessarily be reduced on appeal or by way of remittance to the sentencing judge.”