Log In

Reset Password
BERMUDA | RSS PODCAST

Teenager was tried and convicted in wrong court

A teenager jailed for a daylight robbery had his conviction and sentence quashed yesterday because of his age.

OJ Campbell, 17, admitted that he used an imitation firearm to rob the Rubis gas station on St John’s Road on May 28, last year.

He was sentenced to serve more than seven years by the Supreme Court last December.

But the Court of Appeal found that the Supreme Court did not have the power to hear his case or deliver the sentence because Mr Campbell was aged under 18.

Sir Christopher Clarke, the president of the Court of Appeal, said the arraignment, conviction and sentence of Mr Campbell were “null, void and of no effect” and ordered the case to go to the Family Court for trial “as soon as possible”.

He added that Mr Campbell would remain in custody at the Co-Ed Facility in St George’s, rather than Westgate prison.

The Court heard that Mr Campbell was arrested on the day of the robbery and appeared in Magistrates’ Court days later.

The case was sent to the Supreme Court, where he pleaded guilty to charges of robbery and handling an imitation firearm.

Puisne Judge Craig Attridge sentenced Mr Campbell to seven-and-a-half years in prison to be followed by 18 months of probation.

Marc Daniels, who represented Mr Campbell, said the matter should never have been sent to the Supreme Court.

He told the Court of Appeal that, although he was not aware of it at the time of the first hearings, legislative amendments meant under the age of 18 was defined as a child.

Mr Daniels said: “What should have happened was that Magistrates’ Court should have sent this appellant to the Family Court.

“We all neglected to observe the age of the appellant at his first appearance at the Magistrates’ Court.

“This error was made when the appellant was sent to the Supreme Court to stand trial.”

He said once the mistake was discovered, the Crown sought to reopen the case in the Family Court to tackle the problem and have Mr Campbell moved from Westgate to the Co-Ed Facility.

Mr Daniels added: “At that time, I just wanted to make sure the appellant was in a better position than where he was being housed, so I supported it.”

He said a magistrate reopened the case, took a plea from Mr Campbell and ordered that he be transferred to the Co-Ed Facility, but the transfer never happened.

Mr Daniels added: “They were operating under the fact they had an order from the Supreme Court which procedurally trumped the order of the Magistrates’ Court, so no further action was taken.”

He said the magistrate later accepted that his court did not have the power to reopen the case and it was brought to the Court of Appeal.

Mr Daniels questioned if the Court of Appeal could legally revert the case to the Magistrates’ Court.

But Mr Justice Clarke said that under the Court of Appeal Act, the Court of Appeal had all the powers of the lower courts.

He added: “If the Supreme Court could transfer the matter to the Family Court, so can we.”

Prosecutors said in the Supreme Court case that at around 12.45pm on May 28, two men on a motorbike went to the St John’s Road gas station.

The rider held the door open and the passenger went inside the station with an object in a bag that appeared to be a gun.

The man demanded access to a safe, but was told there was no safe, so he took cash from the register.

The men fled on the motorcycle.

Police found the bike abandoned on North Shore Road just after the robbery and were told by witnesses that two men had ran from the area.

Mr Campbell was arrested in connection with the incident later that afternoon after he was chased by officers through a Pembroke warehouse.

Police noticed he had a brown paper bag in his hand when he ran into the building, but did not have it when he came out.

Staff at the warehouse later told police they had found the bag, which held $2,619 in Bermuda cash and $56 in US bills.

It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case.