A man convicted of attempted murder appealed his case today to no avail. In 2018, 22 year old Kevaughan Staine was sentenced to ten years in prison for the attempted murder of his cousin, Taisha Staine.
The incident happened on the night of New Years Eve 2013. Staine was walking on Gladden Street, heading home, when Kevaughan rode up on a bicycle and shot her in the neck. She tried to escape, but he pursued her, firing more shots, which injured her to her left leg, her left hand, her back, and her chest. Fortunately, she survived the attack.
The appeal was heard today with attorney Hubert Elrington appearing for
Kevaughn Staine. But the panel of judges dismissed the appeal and declared the conviction and sentence firm. We spoke to Elrington after the trial and he said that an important safeguard meant to protect those on trial in criminal cases has been removed.
Hubert Elrington, Attorney
"I supposed it is one of these situations where for maybe 50 years the law is one way and then a judgement comes out maybe for policy reason or some other reason, the law is change completely. The rules up until now provided that the defendant would have certain protection. In other words, it is not just you say that I am the person who did this, but there has to be an identification parade and you have to demonstrate in that identification parade that you can pick me out. There seems to be a change in the law now that you can get a conviction much easier. You don't need any identification parade again."
"3 grounds; one dealt with evidential burden and then the other dealt with the burden of proof. So there are 2 different things; ground 1, evidential burden,; ground 2, burden of proof. Ground 3, that a warning was required before conviction could be recorded. No warning was given. It was common ground that no warning was given. The judge simply did not advert his mind to the need for warning, but there is a new case which says that look, you don't have to give any warning, you don't have to have dock identification. You can go ahead and remove the safeguards. This case is about the removal of an important safeguard that convicts have or that people out there have and a very important safeguard was removed by the court. When I look at the judgement if there is something to take to the Caribbean Court of Justice then I can do that. I doesn't have die with this. But it seems to have been a case in which somewhere in England they have made a dramatic change to our law."
Elrington also commented that if he is unsatisfied with elements of the written judgement he may choose to appeal this case once again, this time at the Caribbean Court of Justice.
Email
Print