Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
The Court of Appeal has ordered a second re-sentencing for a St James man convicted of raping and murdering a four-year-old girl as a teenager, after previously escaping the mandatory death penalty.
In a judgment delivered Thursday, Appellate Judges Nolan Bereaux, Maria Wilson and Geoffrey Henderson upheld an appeal by Peter Matthews challenging the 50-year prison sentence imposed for the especially heinous crime.
Matthews, of Upper Bournes Road, St James, was convicted of the brutal murder of Roslyn Lucas. On August 26, 1976, Lucas’ mother left her with a neighbour while she went to work. When she returned the following morning, she found her daughter dead in the apartment. A post-mortem revealed that the child had been raped and died of heart failure.
Matthews, who lived nearby, was charged after allegedly confessing to the murder. He claimed he had attacked the child while she was sleeping and did not intend to kill her.
In 1984, Matthews was convicted by a jury and sentenced to death by hanging. He lost appeals against his conviction in both the Court of Appeal and the United Kingdom-based Privy Council. His death sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment under the landmark Jamaican case of Pratt and Morgan, which ruled that a death sentence could not be executed more than five years after it was handed down.
Matthews was re-sentenced last year following another landmark ruling that convicts with commuted life sentences must receive definitive prison terms based on the unique circumstances of their crimes.
During the appeal, Matthews’ lawyers, Joseph Sookoo and Abigail Roach, argued that the 50-year sentence was excessive. They also highlighted that the judges at his trial and re-sentencing failed to adequately consider that Matthews was 17 years old at the time of the offence. They contended that his initial death sentence was unlawful and that he should have been given a minimum sentence with periodic reviews, given his minor status at the time.
In the judgment, Justice Wilson noted that the re-sentencing judge was presented with conflicting information about Matthews’ age. While his lawyers asserted he was 17, his recorded confession stated he was 19, and the judge based the re-sentencing on the higher age. Justice Wilson suggested the judge should have allowed the defence to provide a birth certificate to resolve the issue.
“It is very unfortunate that the re-sentencing judge did not adjourn her decision to verify the appellant’s correct age at the time of the offence,” Justice Wilson said. “Despite the tragic circumstances, the gravity of the situation required certainty on his age before re-sentencing.”
While the panel upheld Matthews’ appeal, it declined to set a new sentence, citing the unique legal circumstances of his case. Justice Wilson observed that both the original death sentence and the subsequent re-sentencing were unlawful, creating a legal conundrum.
“What can our court do about this legal conundrum? Does this mean that the appellant is left in ‘legal limbo’ without a remedy?” Justice Wilson said. She ruled that a fresh re-sentencing before another High Court judge was the best solution, as it would allow Matthews the right to appeal again.
“The Appeal Court should not re-sentence the appellant itself, as that would amount to imposing an original sentence and deprive him of the option to appeal,” Justice Wilson added.
The judges set a 21-day deadline for Matthews’ re-sentencing. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was represented by Wayne Rajbansie.
