bahamiangoddess
06-25-08, - 10:26 AM
June 25th, 2008
Court Says Murder Convict Lawfully Held
By Sasha L. Lightbourne
The Court of Appeal said Tuesday that murder convict Michelle Woodside was not unlawfully detained.
Court of Appeal justices said Tuesday they did not understand the rationale for Supreme Court justice Jon Isaacs’ decision that convicted murderer Michelle Woodside had been unlawfully detained in prison.
Justice Isaacs determined that she had been unlawfully detained from the time of her conviction in November 1992 up to her re-sentencing last September.
Prosecutors had appealed the judge’s decision.
Woodside, who was convicted of murdering Catholic nun Sister Claire Haas in 1991 and sentenced to death, had to be re-sentenced because the Privy Council ruled in 2006 that the mandatory death sentence was unconstitutional.
Last September, Justice Isaacs sentenced Woodside to serve five additional years.
Police said Woodside used a rock to bash in Sister Claire’s head in an attempt to conceal the theft of $6,000 from Our Lady’s rectory.
On Tuesday, the appellate justices first had to decide whether there was a proper constitutional appeal before the court.
Woodside’s attorney Jerone Roberts contended that the attorney general’s office had not submitted a proper notice of appeal and that the sitting justices should not hear the case.
He also said that the appeal was not submitted in the proper form and also never served on his client.
Mr. Roberts told the justices that for those reasons they should not hear the matter.
Lead prosecutor Garvin Gaskin countered that he had a proper constitutional appeal.
He also said that under the Court of Appeal Act and the Supreme Court Act there are no rules of procedure for constitutional matters.
Mr. Gaskin said the appeal was a lawful one and fell within the ambit of a criminal appeal before the court.
But Mr. Roberts insisted that the prosecution was usurping its authority by using both criminal and civil rules within the court.
He said whether the appeal was a criminal or civil appeal did not matter.
Mr. Roberts said if the court decided that the issue was one of criminal substance then the notice of appeal was not served on his client in the 21 days required by law.
If it was civil, Mr. Roberts said, it did not meet the required form under the civil rules outlined in the Court of Appeal Act.
After a 10 minute adjournment the court decided that it would hear the matter.
Regarding Justice Isaacs’ decision that Woodside had been unlawfully detained, Mr. Gaskin said the judge erred in law in making that declaration.
Mr. Gaskin told the justices that the attorney general disagreed that there was any breach under the constitution and that Woodside was lawfully detained throughout the entire trial process.
Dame Joan Sawyer, president of the Court of Appeal, said all criminals are detained by order of remand by any court, which is "simple law" for any judge in The Bahamas.
Justice Emmanuel Osadebay agreed, indicating that in the period after Woodside’s conviction and prior to her re-sentencing she was lawfully detained.
He also added that when the Privy Council ruled that the mandatory death sentence was unconstitutional it never said that inmates impacted by this ruling were being unlawfully held.
Justice Osadebay noted that the Privy Council only asked for those inmates to be re-sentenced.
Dame Joan also said that until a sentence is pronounced by a judge, the trial has not come to an end, so there was no way that Woodside could have been unlawfully detained.
Mr. Roberts insisted that his client was unlawfully detained, but eventually conceded to the points made by the justices.
Dame Joan told Mr. Roberts that essentially if Justice Isaacs made the declaration that Woodside’s personal liberty was being "infringed" he was saying that she should go free.
She said there could never be an instance where a murder convict could ever be unlawfully detained and set free by an "egregious" decision of a judge.
Last month, the Court of Appeal upheld Justice Isaacs’ decision to sentence Woodside to an additional five years, after ruling that prosecutors had not properly filed their appeal.
However, the appellate court strongly criticized the judge for handing down that sentence.
The justices said at the time they believed that "the disparities in sentencing and egregious errors in principle in the judge’s approach are disturbing."
Court Says Murder Convict Lawfully Held
By Sasha L. Lightbourne
The Court of Appeal said Tuesday that murder convict Michelle Woodside was not unlawfully detained.
Court of Appeal justices said Tuesday they did not understand the rationale for Supreme Court justice Jon Isaacs’ decision that convicted murderer Michelle Woodside had been unlawfully detained in prison.
Justice Isaacs determined that she had been unlawfully detained from the time of her conviction in November 1992 up to her re-sentencing last September.
Prosecutors had appealed the judge’s decision.
Woodside, who was convicted of murdering Catholic nun Sister Claire Haas in 1991 and sentenced to death, had to be re-sentenced because the Privy Council ruled in 2006 that the mandatory death sentence was unconstitutional.
Last September, Justice Isaacs sentenced Woodside to serve five additional years.
Police said Woodside used a rock to bash in Sister Claire’s head in an attempt to conceal the theft of $6,000 from Our Lady’s rectory.
On Tuesday, the appellate justices first had to decide whether there was a proper constitutional appeal before the court.
Woodside’s attorney Jerone Roberts contended that the attorney general’s office had not submitted a proper notice of appeal and that the sitting justices should not hear the case.
He also said that the appeal was not submitted in the proper form and also never served on his client.
Mr. Roberts told the justices that for those reasons they should not hear the matter.
Lead prosecutor Garvin Gaskin countered that he had a proper constitutional appeal.
He also said that under the Court of Appeal Act and the Supreme Court Act there are no rules of procedure for constitutional matters.
Mr. Gaskin said the appeal was a lawful one and fell within the ambit of a criminal appeal before the court.
But Mr. Roberts insisted that the prosecution was usurping its authority by using both criminal and civil rules within the court.
He said whether the appeal was a criminal or civil appeal did not matter.
Mr. Roberts said if the court decided that the issue was one of criminal substance then the notice of appeal was not served on his client in the 21 days required by law.
If it was civil, Mr. Roberts said, it did not meet the required form under the civil rules outlined in the Court of Appeal Act.
After a 10 minute adjournment the court decided that it would hear the matter.
Regarding Justice Isaacs’ decision that Woodside had been unlawfully detained, Mr. Gaskin said the judge erred in law in making that declaration.
Mr. Gaskin told the justices that the attorney general disagreed that there was any breach under the constitution and that Woodside was lawfully detained throughout the entire trial process.
Dame Joan Sawyer, president of the Court of Appeal, said all criminals are detained by order of remand by any court, which is "simple law" for any judge in The Bahamas.
Justice Emmanuel Osadebay agreed, indicating that in the period after Woodside’s conviction and prior to her re-sentencing she was lawfully detained.
He also added that when the Privy Council ruled that the mandatory death sentence was unconstitutional it never said that inmates impacted by this ruling were being unlawfully held.
Justice Osadebay noted that the Privy Council only asked for those inmates to be re-sentenced.
Dame Joan also said that until a sentence is pronounced by a judge, the trial has not come to an end, so there was no way that Woodside could have been unlawfully detained.
Mr. Roberts insisted that his client was unlawfully detained, but eventually conceded to the points made by the justices.
Dame Joan told Mr. Roberts that essentially if Justice Isaacs made the declaration that Woodside’s personal liberty was being "infringed" he was saying that she should go free.
She said there could never be an instance where a murder convict could ever be unlawfully detained and set free by an "egregious" decision of a judge.
Last month, the Court of Appeal upheld Justice Isaacs’ decision to sentence Woodside to an additional five years, after ruling that prosecutors had not properly filed their appeal.
However, the appellate court strongly criticized the judge for handing down that sentence.
The justices said at the time they believed that "the disparities in sentencing and egregious errors in principle in the judge’s approach are disturbing."