Disgraced Baptist Minister, Edmund Gilbert is to reappear before a high court judge in Grenada for proper sentencing in the murder of Robby-Ann Jeremiah in February 2001.

This decision was made by the Law Lords of the Privy Council in London following an appeal made on Gilbert's behalf by local attorneys Anslem Clouden and Lloyd Noel.

The law lords ruled that a mistake was made by the trial judge, O. Sylvester of St. Vincent in allowing the jury to arrive at the verdict. "....There is no dispute that an error was made", said Lord Woolf who delivered the Privy Council judgement on behalf of four other Law Lords.
He said: "The appellant (Gilbert) was sentenced to death by the jury following his conviction. This was not in accordance with the practice laid out by the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean...".

Woolf recalled that the Court of Appeal itself in 2001 ruled that sentencing in capital cases "was properly a matter for the trial judge and not for the jury". Following is Part 1 of the ruling from the British Privy Council on the Edmund Gilbert Murder Appeal handed down on March 27, 2006:

The appellant was no doubt a respected and well-known figure in Grenada. He had been a Senior Tax Collector and a Bishop of one of the Island's Baptist churches.

He was tried for the murder of a 15 year old girl called Robby Ann Jeremiah. He was convicted on 12 December 2001 before Sylvester J and a jury on the 17 December 2001 imposed the death penalty. He appealed against his conviction to the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal ( Grenada) and on the 23 November 2002 that court (Byron CJ, Redhaead and Georges JJA) dismissed his appeal against conviction and sentence.

The present appeal is brought with special leave which was granted by the board on the 27 July 2004. On the appeal he was represented by Miss Montgomery QC and Mr. Julian Knowles. At the outset of her submissions Miss Montgomery made it clear that the central point of the appeal was whether the judge was under a duty to give a direction as to the appellant's good character and if he was under such a duty as to the effect of his failure to give such a direction.

The appellant also complains about:

(I) the judge's failure to warn the jury that they should ignore anything that they might have heard or read about the case in the media,

(ii) the judge being wrong to allow a witness, called Aleccia Victor who was aged 17, to give evidence that she had had a sexual relationship with the appellant and seen him slap the deceased,

(iii) the judge's directions about telephone calls which were made early on the morning of the day when the deceased's body was found,

(iv) misdirecting the jury on how it should approach the appellant's alibi,

(v) the judge's failure to direct the jury correctly as to the possible partiality of a juror.

In addition, the appellant submits that the sentence of death was unlawfully imposed because he was sentenced to death by the jury and not by the judge. That this should not have happened is accepted by Mr. James Guthrie QC who appeared on behalf of the respondent.

The Facts

The body of the victim was found at a place in Grenada called "True Blue" at about 7.00 a.m. on the morning of 1 February 2001. Earlier that morning, at 5:29, a Constable Gill, who was at the CID Office received a telephone call to the effect that the victim was "on top of the hill in True Blue lying down".

When the Constable asked whether she was dead, the voice answered, "may be". The Crown contended that this call was made by the appellant to Police Headquarters and then re-routed to the CID Office. If the telephone call was made by the appellant, this would be inconsistent with the appellant's case that he knew nothing about the strangling of the victim.

In addition to that telephone call, the Crown also called evidence from a Sandra Hinds who said that at around 7:30 a.m., two hours later, she saw the appellant near to a telephone box. There was also evidence that two calls had been made from the appellant's mobile phone at 7:58 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. to the Police Headquarters.

Those calls were received by another Officer who stated that the caller said that there was a body of a dead girl on True Blue. Sarah Hinds saw the appellant at around 7:30 a.m. She noticed that he had a mobile phone with him and asked him why he was using a call-box. He replied that it was because it was cheaper.

On the 1 February 2001 the appellant was said to have taken a gold chain to a jeweller and asked for it to be incorporated into an item that he had previously ordered. The chain was identified as belonging to the victim by Aleccia. Aleccia gave evidence after the objection to her doing so had been overruled, that she was the victim's best friend.

She stated that she had had sexual relations with the appellant three times prior to the 31 January 2001. She also described seeing the appellant slapping the victim on several occasions and said that he had told her that he and the victim had had sexual relations.

On two of the occasions on which Aleccia contended she had sexual intercourse with the appellant, she said that this had occurred at the place where the victim's body was found. Furthermore, Aleccia said that on the 1 February 2001, when she had called the appellant on his mobile phone to ask where the victim was, he had told her to go to a "burial home".

It was suggested to Aleccia during her cross-examination that she had told the victim's grandmother, Anita Jack, that the murder had been committed by three other men. It was suggested that the three men had taken her and the victim to a house where each of the men had had "sex" with the victim in front of Aleccia.

It was alleged that she had then told Anita Jack that the men had killed the deceased by among other things, striking her with a piece of wood on the back of her head with such force that "one eye was coming out". They had then taken the deceased body and dumped it at True Blue. The men had also threatened her that if she talked "it would be her turn next".

Aleccia denied this had happened and denied that she had told Anita Jack anything of the sort suggested. Anita Jack was called as a witness. She confirmed that Aleccia had given this account of the events. She also said that the victim had sometimes run away from home.

The Crown were allowed to treat Anita Jack as a hostile witness. She had not given this account to the Magistrate who conducted the preliminary inquiry as to the appellant's responsibility. It was denied by Inspector Dunbar, who originally arrested the appellant at Anita Jack's home, that Anita Jack had told him about the three men.

In due course a post mortem was carried out. The cause of death was strangulation. There was no evidence of an injury which would be compatible with deaths being caused in the manner which was suggested during the cross-examination of Aleccia.

A submission of no-case was made and rejected. The appellant made an unsworn statement from the dock. He described how he was 60 years of age and a Minister of Religion for the past 32 years. He also described his work as a tax collector for 36 years. So far as his relationship with the victim was concerned, he contended it was no more than that of "a father and pastor", he was " merely assisting the family in trying to stabilise her with her wild sexual activities".

He said that on occasion he had gone with her family to try and find her, but she had been abused by 11 bus drivers and conductors. The chain that was produced in evidence was not one which he had taken to the jeweller. He called his wife to support his alibi.

The mother of the victim, the daughter of Anita Jack gave evidence that she was present on 4 February when Aleccia came to Anita Jack's house and told them she had been killed by the three men. We were referred to a considerable number of authorities as to the obligation of a trial judge in relation to a defendant of good character.

The authorities make it clear that there is a considerable consensus as to what are the responsibilities of a trial judge when directing a jury as to the significance of a defendant being of good character.

(To be continued)