The Court of Appeal has overturned the conviction and sentence of a then 18-year-old who Magistrate John Ballah jailed in September 2023 after refusing to send him for a psychiatric evaluation.
Oran Bute did not have a lawyer when he pleaded guilty at the Kingstown Magistrate’s Court on Sept. 4, 2023, to a charge that on the previous day, he entered the dwelling house of Jeanne Dunbar, of Cane Garden, with intent to commit an offence, to wit theft.
But on Sept. 5, 2023, lawyer Jomo Thomas appeared amicus on Bute’s behalf and told the court that Bute’s family has a history of mental illness and he could be displaying early signs of psychiatric distress.
Ballah said:
“I hear you on the issue of maybe the court should have a psychiatric evaluation. I have seen nothing that suggests to me that I should do that. What I would like to hear from you is your position in relation to how the sentencing guidelines affect him. Which is what I like to follow.”
He then went on to sentence Bute, a first-time offender, to seven months imprisonment.
After the sentence, High Court judge, Justice Brian Cottle granted an application by Counsel Grant Connell for Bute’s bail, pending appeal.
In November 2024, with Thomas acting amicus for Bute, the Court of Appeal quashed the sentence, saying that Ballah had erred by automatically sentencing Bute to prison.
Thomas had only made an application relating to Bute’s sentence but raised the issue of Bute’s mental state and his ability to plead guilty.
The higher court allowed Thomas to speak to some of the issues that iWitness News has captured in its reporting on the case and he asked the court to take judicial notice of them.
The appeal court, however, noted that it could not take evidence from the bar table and allowed Thomas to amend the grounds of appeal.
Thomas asked the court to allow him to enter new evidence and the court overturned Bute’s conviction after hearing arguments in the case.
When Cottle granted Bute bail pending the hearing of his appeal, one of the conditions was that he undergo a psychiatric evaluation.
The Mental Health Rehabilitation Centre concluded that Bute had a chronicity of schizophrenia, which Thomas told iWitness News on Wednesday “verified my scepticism.
“So, on the basis of that, the Court [of Appeal] ruled that he was unfit to plead and as a consequence, quashed the conviction.”
Thomas noted that the iWitness News reporting on the case had generated a lot of public discussion.
He pointed out that social commentator Stephen Joachim was vehement that there was something wrong in the manner in which the court had handled the case.
Thomas told iWitness News that the case showed that judicial officers must be alert to some of the important things when an accused comes before the court.
He said this is particularly the case when an accused does not have a lawyer, to ensure that the accused person understands the charge so that they can properly plead to it.
Thomas told iWitness News a judicial officer needs to pay serious attention a several things during arraignment.
“Among them is if he’s fit to plea, and if he fully understands the implication of the plea. The courts are replete with decisions that speak to those conditions,” Thomas told iWitness News.
DPP’s Office praised
He praised the contribution of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DDP) office to the hearing of both appeals.
Thomas said Crown Counsel Maria Jackson-Richards was “exemplary, and on both occasions, they supported the submissions which were made for this young man.
“In fact, I thought that Ms Jackson’s submission on the issue of the conviction was even more wholesome than mine. It went through the whole history and pointing to all of the legal bases upon which a judge should pay attention in arriving at that decision.”
He said that in this case, the DPP’s office “truly lived up to the mandate that the prosecutor’s role is not to secure a conviction, but to ensure that justice is done”.
Intruder stayed after homeowner called police, threatened to shoot him
The facts of the case were that on Sept. 3, 2023, about 7:30 a.m., Dunbar’s husband left home for work and she and the children were in their respective rooms.
While Dunbar was in her bedroom, she heard a noise coming from outside and thought it was her children.
When she went outside, she saw Bute in the house and he followed her downstairs when she ran there.
Bute stayed at the property even after Dunbar told him that she would shoot him and was still there when her husband arrived seven minutes after she telephoned him.
The intruder was still at the property when the police arrived sometime later.
According to the reports, he was not aggressive toward the occupants of the house, did not threaten them and also did not steal anything.
Bute told the court that he did not break into the house.
He said the door was unlocked and that he knew Dunbar, through his father and had gone to the house before to deliver furniture.
Dunbar, however, said that while she knows Bute’s father, she has never been to their furniture shop.
In his mitigation, Thomas had told the magistrate that breaking into and entering the a citizen’s property is serious
“On the other side of the ballot sheet, there are a number of other things that represent him to the court,” Thomas had said, noting that Bute as a young, first-time offender, who may have mental health problems.
He noted that Bute did not harm or threaten anyone.
“But I strongly believe, having interacted with this young man and having only interacted with him for 10, 15 minutes, that he has some mental issues. Maybe it would become clear in the weeks, months and years ahead and then we may want to pay attention to it then,” the lawyer had said.
I had taken an interest in this case from the beginning but did not follow through.
I do not know the young man but know his mother and maternal grandmother. When I was told of the incident on the day of its occurrence and the outcome of the case before the magistrate, despite the amicus intervention of lawyer Jomo Thomas to try to persuade the magistrate to order a psychiatric evaluation and the blunt refusal of the magistrate to acquiesce, the facts of the case screamed evidence of some sort of mental or psychological defect.
One does not have to be a psychiatrist to realize that something was radically wrong with the young man. Yes, he trespassed. But was there any other criminal act or intent? What sort of person with criminal intent enters a private dwelling, is discovered and confronted by the female adult of the residence and does not attempt to run away; does not pose any physical threat to the resident nor her children; tells the resident that he wants to move in and live with them; stays put even though she told him he would be shot; remains there while she calls her husband; stayed until the husband arrived; still does not attempt to escape; remains until the police showed up?
The facts of this case screamed for application of the balance of justice with mercy.
A young man who’s obviously or at least at the time of the commission of the trespass, was experiencing some sort of mental or psychological distress, a young man who was a virgin to the court, had no previous encounters with the police. What purpose was gonna be served by confinement in a penal institution? I am very delighted that the outcome is one commensurate with the circumstances.
In light of the diagnosis, it is now incumbent on his parents, the mental health system, etc. to ensure that he receives the treatment he needs so that the probability of him reoffending is reduced. I do not often see eye to eye with Mr. Jomo Thomas; however, I would like here to publicly commend him for his amicus intervention and his follow-through with the process and thereby facilitating a sensible and prudent outcome.
Congratulations, Jomo! You did a great job!