Matthew Andre Miller v The Commissioner of Police

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Isaacs JA
• Judgment Date: 04 March 2019
• Neutral Citation: BS 2019 CA 24
• Court: Court of Appeal (Bahamas)
• Date: 04 March 2019
• Docket Number: MCCrApp & CAIS No. 240 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon Mr Justice Isaacs, JA

The Hon Mr Justice Barnett, JA

The Hon Mr Justice Evans, JA

MCCrApp & CAIS No. 240 of 2017

Matthew Andre Miller

Applicant/Appellant

and

The Commissioner of Police

Respondent

Mr Osman Johnson, Counsel for Applicant/Appellant

Ms Kristan Stubbs, with Ms Janessa Murray, Counsel for Respondent

Criminal law - Possession of dangerous drugs with intent to supply — Taking steps preparatory to the export of dangerous drugs — Appeal against sentence — Whether sentences ought to run concurrently instead of consecutively.

1 (Extension of Time)

2 (Substantive Appeal)

3 The oral judgment of the court was delivered by

Isaacs JA

4 The appellant was charged with possession of dangerous drugs with intent to supply some ten ounces of cocaine. He was also charged with taking steps preparatory to the export of dangerous drugs. He was convicted of both upon his plea of guilt.

5 In the normal course of events, persons pleading guilty are afforded, for want of a better word, a rebate to encourage such actions on the part of accused persons. The benefit that accrues to the court is that the court's time is saved, witnesses do not have to be brought and the inconvenience that involves, and it certainly demonstrates to the court a level of contriteness on the part of the defendant that there is remorse for the commission of the offence. In those circumstances, pleas of guilt ought to be encouraged. Unfortunately, in this case, the reverse has occurred.

6 Having pleaded guilty to the offences, the accused, notwithstanding he was given fines and in lieu thereof imprisonment, we are of the view that these sentences are inordinately high. Certainly, the fact that they are made consecutive cannot stand in the face of the statute which indicates that offences that are all transacted at the same time ought not to attract consecutive sentences. On its face, the appellant has a good prospect of success. Therefore, we grant leave to appeal out of time. We are satisfied that the appeal must be allowed.

7 In the circumstances, on the first count for which the appellant had received some three (3) years, this court is of the view that that sentence cannot stand. It is quashed and in its place we substitute a sentence of twenty-two (22) months.

8 In respect of Count 2, that sentence of $6,000.00 or two (2) years is quashed. In its stead, we impose a custodial sentence of...