THE TRIBUNE
Friday, October 12, 2018, PAGE 3
Judges order retrial in McCartney killing from page one
called “AB”, was “crucial” and was the “main issue” that needed to be determined by the jury. “In the circumstances of this case we find that the learned trial judge fell into error when he permitted the witness ‘AB’ to give evidence while fully screened,” the appellate judges wrote. “The members of the jury were deprived of the opportunity to observe his demeanour so as to assist with their assessment of his credibility. “In this case where the case against the appellant turned on the evidence of ‘AB,’ this was crucial. “…Accordingly, we allow the appeal and quash the convictions on all charges and set aside the sentences imposed and we order that the case be remitted to the Supreme Court for a retrial as soon as possible.”
On December 14, 2015, a jury took three hours to return verdicts for Edwards and his co-accused after the panel had been excused to deliberate on the evidence. Edwards was unanimously convicted of murder and was found guilty of armed robbery on a majority verdict of 9-3. His ex-girlfriend and coaccused Lyndera Curry was acquitted of murder but found guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter by 11-1. The same count was returned on her conviction for armed robbery. In June 2016, Edwards was sentenced to 45 years for murdering McCartney and 20 years for robbing the deceased at gunpoint. Curry received seven years for her manslaughter conviction and five years for armed robbery. Okell Farrington and Sumya Ingraham were acquitted of murder, manslaughter and armed robbery. Businessman and
community activist Terry Delancy, who had been accused of being an accessory to the murder after the fact, was acquitted of the charge following the close of the prosecution’s case for legal reasons. It was alleged that Edwards shot McCartney in the face after he became involved in an argument between Curry and the victim. The prosecution maintained that McCartney’s body was crushed when Farrington, Ingraham and Curry allegedly rolled over his body as they fled the scene in the McCartney’s Hummer. It was alleged that Edwards ran away after the shooting. At trial, the jury heard from anonymous witness “AB” who said the pharmacist was arguing with one of two women he was walking with, Curry and Ingraham, and that one of the women signalled to a man who approached and shoved
McCartney before shooting the victim. However, a 12-year-old witness told the jury that there was a single assailant who startled McCartney as he was trying to enter his vehicle, shot him in the head and then sped off in the victim’s car after rolling over him. At the time, the prosecution had asked now deceased Chief Justice Stephen Isaacs to impose the maximum penalties – death and life sentences – on the law books for the accused. The prosecution said the shooting of McCartney, an unarmed man, in the head and crushing nearly every bone in his body with his own vehicle to ensure his death, warranted such sentences. However, the judge noted at the time that the seriousness of the offences had to be balanced against the fact both convicts were young and had no prior criminal history when the October 2013 incident occurred.
THORNE Edwards pictured outside court previously.
SOCIAL SERVICES WORKER RELEASED AFTER NIGHT IN JAIL By NICO SCAVELLA Tribune Staff Reporter nscavella@tribunemedia.net A SENIOR officer at the Department of Social Services was released from custody yesterday after spending the night in jail for failing to honour a court order to produce two children the government agency took from their mother without a court order. However, Ellerie Seymour, a senior welfare officer in the Child Protection Unit, is still facing contempt of court proceedings in the Supreme Court for violating Magistrate Kara TurnquestDeveaux’s order to have the 11-year-old girl and six-yearold boy produced by 8pm on Tuesday. Magistrate TurnquestDeveaux said the ordeal was an “embarrassment” on the DSS’s part, asserting that the agency acted “improperly”. Meanwhile, Bahamas Public Services Union president Kimsley Ferguson, speaking with reporters while flanked by numerous social services workers after the hearing, said his membership is upset that one of their own was “dragged before the courts” for doing her job. Mr Ferguson said the social services workers are of the opinion that the safety and well-being of children are their paramount concern, and that they must consequently have “some degree of protection in doing their job”. Mr Ferguson said the union will not rest until it gets an audience with the minister of social services on their concerns, and that if there is any reluctance to speak with the union on the minister’s part, his members will have to “squeak so that we can be heard”. According to attorney Ramona Farquharson-Seymour, the two children were
taken from their mother, her client, whose name has been withheld to protect the children’s identity, sometime in July, after a call was placed into the Department of Social Services (DSS) alleging the 11-year-old girl was being abused. Mrs Farquharson-Seymour said at that time, the DSS called her client and told her that she was to leave her children in a neutral place, which was designated as being the maternal grandmother’s house. According to the attorney, the children were then instead placed under the care of the paternal grandmother. Mrs Farquharson-Seymour said her client had no contact with her children since then, while her estranged husband did by virtue of his mother. Mrs Farquharson-Seymour said her client visited the DSS on numerous occasions on the matter and was given certain directives. However, it was when the DSS indicated that it was seeking to implement supervised visits did the mother reach out to her for legal advice. Mrs Farquharson-Seymour said upon being retained, she conducted a search for the protection order or the care order the DSS “ought to have received” from the court empowering it to remove the children; however she said that search was fruitless. The mother ultimately filed an application to have her children returned to her, which led to the court writing a letter to the DSS inquiring about the matter. The DSS sent a report chronicling their version of the matter in response, signed by both Ms Seymour and another employee. Both ladies testified in court on the matter, after which Magistrate
To advertise in The Tribune, contact 502-2394
Turnquest-Deveaux ultimately ordered to have the children produced no later than 8pm on Tuesday. The following day, however, it was discovered that the children were not returned as ordered. That led to the court sending for Ms Seymour, who, when brought before the court, gave no explanation for not obeying the order, according to Mrs Farquharson-Seymour. As a result, she was detained until such time as the children were produced. Yesterday, scores of DSS workers filled Magistrate Turnquest-Deveaux’s courtroom, as well as the sitting area, some standing, just outside the room as they lent their support to the Attorney General’s Office’s bid to have Ms Seymour released from custody pending any Supreme Court hearing of the contempt of court issue. Kayla Green-Smith, a senior attorney in the Office of the Attorney General, said both her legal team and the DSS were working
up until 12am on Thursday to try and resolve the matter, and had enlisted the assistance of all of the officers at the Carmichael Road Police Station towards that end. She also indicated that the children were sighted in the downtown area near the Supreme Court, and noted that the father’s attorney gave an undertaking to the Office of the Attorney General to have the children produced before the court yesterday morning. However, Mrs Farquharson-Seymour said the children, along with an “elderly woman” suggested to be the paternal grandmother, were sighted “walking about on Bank Lane” by one of her staff, who subsequently alerted the police in a bid to have them taken to the Magistrate’s Court. There was also mention that the father’s attorney had sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court with respect to the matter around that same
time, which Magistrate Turnquest-Deveaux said was “struck down” because the manner in which the father’s attorney sought to do so was “rejected by the judge”. Nonetheless, Magistrate Turnquest-Deveaux dubbed that attempt by the father’s attorney to approach the Supreme Court as a failed attempt to “circumvent” her October 9 order to have the children returned, sentiments Mrs Farquharson-Seymour later echoed when speaking to the press after the hearing. A few moments later, the two children, wearing their school uniforms, were escorted into the court room with their father. Ms Green-Smith subsequently indicated that the DSS would like to monitor the case weekly for another month based on certain allegations to which they were privy, Magistrate Turnquest-Deveaux subsequently stood the matter down and took the children
into her chambers to speak with them. When she returned to the bench, Magistrate Turnquest-Deveaux indicated that the 11-year-old was distraught about the whole ordeal, particularly because she missed a school event she was really looking forward to. Nonetheless, having fielded the submissions from counsel, she ordered the children to be returned to their mother. A loud “Thank you, Jesus” could be heard emanating from the side of the court where the mother was sitting when the magistrate said those words. She subsequently ruled that she would refer the matter to the Supreme Court for a determination of the contempt proceedings, and that Ms Seymour would be released until then. However, the magistrate advised the DSS, which “started out improperly”, to do what they need to do in a proper manner.