Frederick Taylor v The Commissioner of Police

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Isaacs, JA
• Judgment Date: 07 March 2019
• Neutral Citation: BS 2019 CA 26
• Docket Number: MCCrApp & CAIS No. 95 of 2017
• Court: Court of Appeal (Bahamas)
• Date: 07 March 2019

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon Mr Justice Isaacs, JA

The Hon Mrs Justice Crane-Scott, JA

The Hon Mr Justice Barnett, JA

MCCrApp & CAIS No. 95 of 2017

Frederick Taylor

Appellant

and

The Commissioner of Police

Respondent

Appellant appeared Pro Se

Ms Darnell Dorsette (holding brief for Ms Kristan Stubbs), Counsel for Respondent

Criminal law - Stealing — Damage — Possession of firearm and ammunition — Appeal against sentence — Whether sentences ought to run concurrently instead of consecutively.

1 (Substantive Appeal: Sentence)

2 The oral judgment of the court was delivered by

Isaacs, JA

3 The Appellant was convicted on 1st February, 2016 of stealing, damage, possession of a firearm and ammunition, numerous counts. There were some three charge sheets, 243, 244, 245.

4 The magistrate sentenced the Appellant on Case No. 243 to 1 year on Count 2 for stealing and 6 months on Count 1 for causing damage. Not having indicated that it is to run consecutively, the law deems that the sentences run concurrently.

5 On Case No. 244 of 2016, the learned magistrate convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to 2 years on Count 1 for stealing and 1 year on Count 3 for causing damage. Again, not having indicated that they are to run consecutively, it is deemed that the sentences run concurrently. The maximum sentence he would serve on this charge sheet is 2 years.

6 On Case No. 245 of 2016 the learned magistrate convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to 2 years on Count 1 for possession of a firearm and 1 year on Count 2 for possession of ammunition. The learned magistrate indicated that these sentences are to run consecutively to those imposed on Docket No. 244 of 2016.

7 Inasmuch as Docket 244 imposed a sentence of not more than 2 years, and that the 2 years and 1 year imposed on Docket 245 run concurrently, the maximum the Appellant can serve on Docket 245 of 2016 is 2 years. When combined with Docket 244 of 2016, the maximum time to be spent by the Appellant is 4 years. The sentences commenced on 1st February, 2016.

8 The appeal is allowed to that extent. The record is clear that the period of incarceration ought to be 4 years with effect from 1st February, 2016.

Dated this 7th day of March, 2019

ISAACS, JA