Log In

Reset Password

Court of Appeal set to hear Worrell case

Set to appeal: Kamal Worrell (File photograph)

The case of a lawyer convicted of murdering the mother of his child is expected to be among several matters to come before the Court of Appeal next month.

Kamal Worrell was found guilty in January 2024 of murdering Chavelle Dillon-Burgess on an unknown date between April 10 and June 11, 2020, and sentenced to serve at least 27 years behind bars.

Ms Dillon-Burgess was reported missing by her family on April 30, 2020, and has still not been found despite island-wide searches.

Worrell maintained his innocence, claiming that he had never acted violently towards Ms Dillon-Burgess and had only ever acted to defend himself when she lashed out at him.

He told the Supreme Court during his trial that Ms Dillon-Burgess had walked out of the home that they shared with their child after an argument on April 11, 2020, and she returned briefly days later only to collect personal items.

However, prosecutors suggested that Worrell felt as though Ms Dillon-Burgess was ruining his career with her allegations of violence and urged the jury to consider his actions before and after her disappearance.

A jury found Worrell guilty of murdering Ms Dillon-Burgess by a majority verdict.

While the jury cleared Worrell of one count of unlawful wounding, they convicted him of six counts of common assault by unanimous verdict and one count by majority verdict.

Worrell, who filed an appeal against his conviction before his sentencing, was sentenced to life behind bars and ordered to serve at least 27 years before becoming eligible for parole.

He was further sentenced to six months behind bars for the assault charges, with all of the sentences ordered to run concurrently.

While Worrell’s case was listed for three days in the draft schedule of the Court of Appeal’s November session, the programme is subject to amendment at any time.

The draft schedule also includes the appeal of Tyrone Quinn, a lawyer who in 2024 was convicted of three counts of theft totalling $483,000.

Tyrone Quinn (File photograph)

During Quinn’s trial, the court heard that between May 2020 and February 2021, he received awards on behalf of three clients in separate legal matters.

Of the three clients, two received a small portion of their award, while the third received nothing.

During his trial, Quinn acknowledged receiving the funds, but claimed he had been approached by two men in 2019 over a “problem” related to an illegal business transaction and that they had demanded compensation.

He said he knew nothing about the “problem”, but paid the men thousands of dollars after they threatened him and his family.

However, Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe said the quick and unanimous guilty verdict showed the jury found the defence to be “absolute hogwash”, and sentenced Quinn to 15 years behind bars.

The court is also scheduled to hear an appeal by John Dexter Seaman, who was sentenced to 18 years behind bars after he was found guilty of eight offences including unlawful carnal knowledge and sexual exploitation, which occurred between 1992 and 1997.

During the course of the Supreme Court trial, the court heard evidence from two sisters who said Seaman had preyed on them for years during their childhood.

Neither defendant made a police complaint about the incidents until 2018.

While he claimed innocence on all charges, he was found guilty by a majority verdict.

The schedule also includes an appeal by Shelton Baker, who was sentenced last year to seven years behind bars for a 2022 aggravated burglary.

During his trial, the court heard that Baker approached a 63-year-old woman with a shirt over his face and held what she believed to be a knife to her neck, demanding to be let inside her home.

The victim complied with the demand, but Baker fled when he saw another person inside.

Baker maintained his innocence, but was found guilty by a jury after a trial in the Supreme Court.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers