Well Mi Bredrin Get Life

[Bricktop]

Businessman gets life for murdering schoolboy
Paul Henry
Wednesday, June 13, 2007

THIRTY-three-year-old Kingston businessman Stephen Grant was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Home Circuit Court last Thursday - a week after being convicted for the 1999 murder of a schoolboy who was out celebrating his 17th birthday.

Grant, a licensed firearm holder, will spend 17 years behind bars before being eligible for parole, despite impassioned pleas from attorney Jacqueline Samuels-Brown that no parole timeline be stipulated.
Samuels-Brown sought to sway Justice Paulette Williams in her lengthy mitigation, noting that the convict was sorry for the murder and that an extended prison sentence would not "serve the public's interest". Under the parole act, persons sentenced to life imprisonment without the establishment of a timeline for parole can serve no more than seven years before becoming eligible for parole.

Character witness Adolph Brown, managing director of Steel Craft Ltd, testified that "the very thoughtful, very sober" Grant "had expressed regret" for the murder.

But Williams was not convinced, and lashed the seemingly nonchalant Grant."A 17-year-old young man is now dead; 11 gunshot wounds to the back. I wonder if you really got it - I'm wondering if you really understand what you did that night. You certainly expressed no remorse or regret for the killing as you stood and told the jurors that your conscience was clear because you know that you were defending yourself that night," Williams scolded.

Williams, however, took into consideration that Grant, the father of a seven-year-old son, had already spent five years behind bars.
Grant was convicted on May 31 for the April 18, 1999 shooting death of Kymani Bailey of Dunoon Technical High School. Bailey was gunned down near the Asylum Nightclub. Grant turned himself in after the incident. He was arrested and charged two weeks later.

Grant, in an unsworn statement at the end of his three-week trial last Thursday, said he was forced to fire on Bailey who held him up with a gun.
This is his second conviction for the murder. He was found guilty on February 8, 2003, and sentenced to life with the possibility of being paroled after serving 20 years. The defence, however, appealed to the Privy Council, which returned the matter to the Court of Appeal, which ordered a retrial on January 16, 2006. The retrial started in October but was aborted in November due to jury tampering.

[Lazie]

11 gunshots? Him expressing regret is meaningless.

[Mosiah]

In the back! Pity he is not a police officer. It would not have even reached court.

[Exile]

Sorry to hear. Not familiar with the details of the case, so I can't rush to judgement. What it highlights though, is the constant fear and vigilance one has to go through in a society scarred by crime and the wide disparity in social fortunes. The US vs. THEM mindset is very evident. The whole justice system I think is a huge farce.

[Bricktop]

1. At about 4.30 am on 18 April 1999 the appellant shot and killed Kymani Bailey, a 17 year-old student, in a car park off Knutsford Boulevard in Kingston. He was charged with murder, tried before McIntosh J and a jury and, on 28 February 2003, convicted. At the trial, despite defence objections, the unsworn written statement of an absent witness, Xavier Newton-Bryant, was admitted against the appellant, on the application of the Crown, under section 31D of the Evidence Act. The unsworn written statement of another absent witness, Michael Kinglock, was not admitted. On appeal against conviction, the appellant challenged the constitutionality of section 31D and also the trial judge’s exercise of discretion to admit the evidence of Bryant, and to admit the evidence of Bryant without that of Kinglock. The Court of Appeal (Bingham and Walker JJA, and Harrison JA(Ag)) rejected both challenges in reasoned judgments delivered on 12 July 2004. Before the Board, both challenges have been repeated. They are resisted by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Attorney General has intervened (as he did in the Court of Appeal) to address the constitutional challenge. The appeal raises important questions on the constitutionality of section 31D and exercise of the judicial power to admit unsworn written statements of absent witnesses.

The facts

2. The area of factual dispute at the trial was, and remains, very limited. Most of the salient facts relied on by the Crown were common ground. The appellant was the licensed owner of a 9 mm Sig Sauer semi-automatic pistol. During the incident early on the morning of 18 April he fired 13 shots which struck the deceased. Two of those shots entered his body from the front, striking the thigh and the scrotum. Those wounds, if treated, were not of themselves life-threatening. Eleven of the shots entered the body of the deceased through different parts of his back, when he had his back towards the appellant. The firing of each shot required a separate pull on the trigger of 1.5 kilograms. Hollow point bullets were used. The cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds. The deceased died in a matter of minutes. The issue for the jury’s decision was whether, as the appellant contended, he had fired these shots in lawful defence of himself. That required the jury to address three questions. First, before and at the time of the shooting, was the appellant subject to a threat or attack, or what he perceived to be such? Secondly, if so, was the threat or attack such, or perceived to be such, as to justify the use of reasonable force in self-defence? Thirdly, if so, did the force used by the appellant go beyond what could in all the circumstances, making allowance for the emergency of the moment, be justified? It was of course for the Crown to rebut this defence, if properly raised, beyond reasonable doubt and not for the defence to make it good. The partial defence of provocation was not advanced by the defence, but the trial judge correctly treated it as potentially raised by the evidence, and properly left it to the jury.

3. The appellant drove straight from the car park where the shooting occurred to the Half-way Tree Police Station in St Andrew where he handed over his pistol and volunteered a statement, which was recorded. In this statement the appellant said that at about 4.15 am he left a bar to return to his van in the car park. As he approached the van he stopped to urinate against a wall. He was zipping up his trousers and heard someone behind him say “Pu$$hole hole, don’t move”. He turned round and saw a man pointing a gun at him. The man was to his right. He pulled out his fully-loaded firearm from his waistband, pointed it at the man and began to squeeze the trigger. He did not know how many shots he fired or if any caught the man. The man ran to the edge of the wall and continued to the other side, where he was out of the appellant’s sight. The appellant followed the man and looked around the wall where the man, still holding the gun, was facing him. The appellant pointed the gun in the man’s direction and squeezed the trigger again. He did not know how many shots were fired, or if any caught the man. After firing this second time, the appellant noticed a group of people running from Knutsford Boulevard towards where he was. To avoid the crowd, he walked to his van and drove to the police station. He had never seen the other man before, and he would not recognise him again. It was dark where the appellant was standing, but moderately lighted where the man stood. His attention had been drawn to the gun in the man’s hand, and he had not noticed anything else.

The trial

4. At trial, the Crown called only one witness who saw any part of the shooting incident. This was Constable Wynter, who testified that he was along Knutsford Boulevard between 3.30 and 4.30 am on 18 April, near the Asylum Nightclub, off duty. He heard 5 or 6 of what he described as explosions sounding like gunshots, coming from the direction of a car park. He walked to see what was happening, and while doing so heard another set of explosions, sounding like those he had heard before and coming from the same direction. He started to run to the car park which was surrounded by buildings, one of them the Jamaica Football Federation building. There were vehicles in the car park, and he saw a man in a crouching position on the piazza of the Federation building, with his arms around the mid section of his body and slightly bending forward. After that he heard no explosions. He then heard a voice behind him, and noticed a person who went to a dump truck and drove off. Wynter made a call to the police by radio, returned to his car and tried without success to follow the truck which had driven off. On returning to the car park, he saw the man he had earlier seen in a crouching position lying face downwards, with gunshot wounds to his back, gasping. He saw nothing in the man’s hand.He did not see anyone pick up a gun from the ground (although onlookers were picking up spent shells and bullets).

[OJ]

sorry to hear, there are no winners in this thing.

[Lazie]

The fact the dead man get shot in the back 11 times .. the shooter gonna have a problem. Worse, a gun wasn't found?

[Mosiah]

The case is rather shaky for the defendant. I pity him because he was convicted by a court system that is a disgrace to justice.

[Rockman]

Yuh bredrin fi true to how yuh defen hym, really sorry bout dat, Bricktop.


Blessed

[Muadib]

Businessman gets life for murdering schoolboy
Paul Henry
Wednesday, June 13, 2007

THIRTY-three-year-old Kingston businessman Stephen Grant was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Home Circuit Court last Thursday - a week after being convicted for the 1999 murder of a schoolboy who was out celebrating his 17th birthday.

Grant, a licensed firearm holder, will spend 17 years behind bars before being eligible for parole, despite impassioned pleas from attorney Jacqueline Samuels-Brown that no parole timeline be stipulated.
Samuels-Brown sought to sway Justice Paulette Williams in her lengthy mitigation, noting that the convict was sorry for the murder and that an extended prison sentence would not "serve the public's interest". Under the parole act, persons sentenced to life imprisonment without the establishment of a timeline for parole can serve no more than seven years before becoming eligible for parole.

Character witness Adolph Brown, managing director of Steel Craft Ltd, testified that "the very thoughtful, very sober" Grant "had expressed regret" for the murder.

But Williams was not convinced, and lashed the seemingly nonchalant Grant."A 17-year-old young man is now dead; 11 gunshot wounds to the back. I wonder if you really got it - I'm wondering if you really understand what you did that night. You certainly expressed no remorse or regret for the killing as you stood and told the jurors that your conscience was clear because you know that you were defending yourself that night," Williams scolded.

Williams, however, took into consideration that Grant, the father of a seven-year-old son, had already spent five years behind bars.
Grant was convicted on May 31 for the April 18, 1999 shooting death of Kymani Bailey of Dunoon Technical High School. Bailey was gunned down near the Asylum Nightclub. Grant turned himself in after the incident. He was arrested and charged two weeks later.

Grant, in an unsworn statement at the end of his three-week trial last Thursday, said he was forced to fire on Bailey who held him up with a gun.
This is his second conviction for the murder. He was found guilty on February 8, 2003, and sentenced to life with the possibility of being paroled after serving 20 years. The defence, however, appealed to the Privy Council, which returned the matter to the Court of Appeal, which ordered a retrial on January 16, 2006. The retrial started in October but was aborted in November due to jury tampering.

Did he try the b@ttyman defense.. maybe if he can prove the man killed was a b@ttyman he can get a reduced sentence...

[Bricktop]

Yuh bredrin fi true to how yuh defen hym, really sorry bout dat, Bricktop.


Blessed

Wasn't really defending him still I just posted the files from his privy council appeal. Take what you will from that.

[Karl]

The case is rather shaky for the defendant. I pity him because he was convicted by a court system that is a disgrace to justice.

Shaky case...or, shaky defense?

[Mosiah]

Shaky defence/case. What's the difference? It's all taking place within a shaky courthouse, under shaky magistrates who should be elsewhere.

[Willi]

In the back! Pity he is not a police officer. It would not have even reached court.

True.

I feel sympathy for him, as if his account is true...and it could well be...I see why he overreacted.