NASSAU, BAHAMAS — The Court of Appeal has ordered the immediate release of an 81-year-old great grandmother who was convicted on a gun charge earlier this year and sentenced to a year in jail.
Freda Hart had attempted to conceal a loaded and unlicensed gun during the execution of a search warrant at a home in Freeport back in 2020.
The appellate court ruled that given her age and medical condition, the six months and 12 days Freda Hart has spent in prison on the gun charge conviction was “sufficient punishment” for her “serious mistake.”
Hart and her grandson James Hart were convicted of possession of an unlicensed firearm along with ammunition. James Hart was sentenced to 30 months and two years in prison respectively on the charges and his grandmother received a 12-month prison sentence on each charge, with the sentences to run concurrently. Freda Hart sought leave from the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to file and service her notice of appeal against her sentence, which she contended was “unduly severe’ given her unblemished character, her age and her medical condition.
Justice Sir Michael Barnett in a majority decision noted that the appellate court should only in limited circumstances interfere with the sentence of a sentencing judge.
“The appellant’s medical evidence was not before the Magistrate. At the time of sentencing, the appellant was not represented by Counsel. Had the Magistrate had the benefit of full argument and the appellant’s medical report to assist him, he may well have come to a different sentencing decision.
“Therefore, the Magistrate was unable to fully consider all relevant factors, particularly the appellant’s medical condition. This Court, having the benefit of that information, is satisfied that this is a proper case to interfere with the sentencing discretion of the Magistrate,” Barnett noted.
“The appellant has already spent over 6 months and 12 days in prison. Given her age and medical condition, the Court is satisfied that this is sufficient punishment for her serious mistake. She should spend no further time in prison and should be released immediately.”
In a dissenting judgment from that of Sir Michael and Justice Charles however, Justice Jon Isaacs contended that in the circumstances of this case, the Magistrate considered all of the facts and circumstances of which he was seized, which did not include a medical report.
Justice Isaacs noted that the Magistrate could not be said to have failed to take into account a medical report that did not exist at the time of the sentencing and ultimately made no error in principle that would permit the Court of Appeal to interfere with Hart’s sentence.
Further, Justice Isaacs cautioned against the appearance of leniency to Hart by the court merely on the basis of advanced age, notwithstanding possession of a deadly weapon and the adverse impact of “encouraging criminals to use their grandmothers and other elderly relatives, as the proverbial shield, on the basis that the courts will give the older relative a mere pat on the hand.”
Justice Isaacs also contended that the one-year sentence is well within the range of sentences for the possession of firearms or ammunition and by far at the lower end of the spectrum.
