NASSAU, BAHAMAS — The Court of Appeal yesterday affirmed the conviction and nine-year sentence of a man who robbed a woman of a $700 cell phone, her driver’s license and a Royal Bank debit card.
Richard Bevans was convicted of the armed robbery of Christine Stubbs in July 2017.
He denied any involvement in the armed robbery.
He was sentenced in August 2018 to nine years and nine months in prison.
He sought to appeal his conviction in May 2019, eight months outside the timeframe to appeal.
The court declined to extend the time.
Justices Sir Michael Barnett, Jon Isaacs and Roy Jones ruled on the matter.
According to the ruling, the factors to be considered on an application for an extension of time are the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay and the prospects of success, as well as the prejudice, if any, to the intended applicant.
Bevans claimed he was reliant on government-provided counsel who failed to provide him with the necessary documents to enable him to prepare for his appeal and received an unfavorable response from the Bahamas Department of Corrections Services.
Court documents noted that Bevans was able to get some assistance from a fellow inmate to complete his application.
“The intended appellant, they say, could not reasonably expect to have assistance from the attorney as his instructions ended at the conclusion of the trial. For this reason, they submit that the excuse proffered for the delay is unacceptable,” read the ruling.
Bevans argued that the failure of the Director of Public Prosecutions to disclose a sketch made by the complainant containing a description of her assailant was a material irregularity affecting the fairness of the trial, and that the trial judge declined to satisfactorily direct the jury on the prosecution’s failure to disclose the same.
The complainant, Stubbs, gave a description of the assailant to the police as dark, tall and skinny. During her evidence, she said she had drawn a complete sketch of the person, which she described as a “great description”.
The statement was not disclosed in her statement prior to giving evidence.
The prosecutor at trial, in response to an enquiry by the juror if the sketch was available, said the sketch was not part of their file.
“It is apparent from the transcript at the trial that Ms Stubbs prepared the sketch which she referred to and not the police,” read the ruling.
“Secondly, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the police or prosecutors ever had the sketch in their possession. Another important fact in this narrative is that the intended appellant’s counsel at trial did not request an adjournment for the sketch, if available, to be located and produced in court.
“If the sketch was important to the defense’s case and could exculpate him, an application should have been made to the judge to adjourn the case to provide the sketch in the interest of justice.
“In our view, it is a speculative exercise to raise at this stage what the sketch would have revealed. We are unable to say whether the sketch would have assisted the intended appellant at his trial and that its non-production was a material irregularity.”
The ruling continued: “In this case, there is no evidence that Ms Stubbs provided the police or prosecution with the sketch or that the fact of the sketch was known to them. Consequently, there was no duty on the trial judge to direct the jury on that aspect of the case. In addition, we have no lurking doubt on the safety of the conviction.”
