The Privy Council has quashed the death sentence imposed on a 36-year-old man convicted of murdering a fireman during a carjacking in 2002.In a 29-page judgment delivered by a five-member appeal panel yesterday, the British court gave three reasons for quashing the death sentence, including because it constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" which is inconsistent with Sections 4(a) and 5(2)(b) of the Constitution.While refering to its well known judgments in the Jamaican death penalty cases of Pratt and Morgan, the judges also said the sentence could not be applied as Ricardo Anthony Daniel had already served five years on death row before his appeal was determined.Its third reason for quashing Daniel's sentence and reverting it to the Court of Appeal for its reconsideration was that his case fell within the "felony murder" rule.
The rule empowers judges to bypass the mandatory death penalty for murder in lieu of a prison sentence in cases where a person kills another while committing another criminal offence.
Daniel, a father of two, was first convicted of murdering Shaheed Mohammed in 2008. He appealed and the Appeal Court ordered retrial, which ended in him being reconvicted in February 2011.Mohammed, a fire sub-station officer attached to the Chaguanas Fire Station, was shot just outside his Freeport home around 5.30 pm on July 3, 2002, during an attempted robbery.He was warded at the Intensive Care Unit of the San Fernando General Hospital for 28 days before he died.In both his trials the State led evidence that an eyewitness saw Daniel robbing and shooting Mohammed.Prosecutors also tendered a confession statement allegedly given by Daniel after he was arrested. However, he alleged it was improperly obtained by police.In the statement, Daniel claimed during the robbery, Mohammed hit him in his head with a beer bottle and began struggling with him for the gun during which time he shot him three times.In appeal, Daniel's attorneys submitted that Mohammed had provoked Daniel into shooting him by resisting the robbery.
They claimed while he had not raised the defence of provocation during both his trials, the trial judges should have nonetheless directed the jury on the issue.The Appeal Court had dismissed this assertion in Daniel's appeal while stating that such a defence can only be invoked if the victim's response to accused's actions went beyond what was "reasonable, predictable and proportionate."
In the judgment, which was delivered by Lord Anthony Hughes, the appeal panel agreed with the local Appeal Court that provocation defence could not be used in cases of "felony murder."Hughes said there was no absolute rule of law that "self-induced" provocation could not be relied upon in other murder cases and it should be "scrupulously" applied by trial judges.Hughes said to prove the defence, accused people still had to prove that their actions were directly caused by the victim's provocative acts and that a reasonable person would have response to these acts in the same manner.Dealing specifically with Daniel's case Hughes said: "There was no evidence of loss of control fit to go the jury and thus provocation did not arise."