The passage of legislation granting limited right of appeal to the prosecution in criminal proceedings came just in time. For had the Parliament continued its plodding on this most important matter the 12-year sentence handed down by Justice Bertram Morrison last week to a man who had confessed to two counts of murder would have stood without the opportunity of being contested.

The sentencing of Lindel Powell, a self-confessed member of the Kings Valley gang, raised eyebrows because the length of the incarceration was not only unbalanced, given the crimes, but due to Justice Morrison’s strong admonition of the criminal and, indeed, his attorney’s ill-judged attempt to blame society and the Government for his descent into evil.

Indeed, we support Justice Morrison’s comment that, “The Government didn’t tell him to put five shots in a person’s chest. He failed himself and society.”

Justice Morrison was also on point when he opined that “murder has become a way of life for certain sections of society” today. “They show no conscience for fellow humans. No conscience at all,” he added — a truth that no one can successfully challenge.

That is why, therefore, we were more than surprised that Justice Morrison imposed what we believe to be a paltry sentence on this man who robbed two families of their loved ones and who, readers will recall, had two previous convictions for illegal possession of a firearm and illegal possession of ammunition for which he was convicted on August 21, 2019 and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment at hard labour on each count.

So, thankfully, as we said, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) now has the right to appeal, and has already served notice, because, as the deputy DPP indicated in court, the sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment would “shock the public’s conscience”, given the nature of the offences.

We have argued in this space before that no modern criminal justice system can claim to be balanced and equitable if the prosecution does not have the right to appeal. Moving to that ideal is ensuring the provision of accountability to litigants while, at the same time, enhancing public confidence that the justice system is equipped to correct errors.

We remind readers of the views expressed on this matter by Chief Justice Bryan Sykes, and with which we agree: “The question seems to be with issues of mixed fact and law, and if we analyse it from the standpoint of principle, the remaining question really is, why shouldn’t there be an appeal in those circumstance? Because if we are talking about ‘justice, truth be ours forever’, one way of establishing truth is by having the work of judges reviewed. Did the judge adequately or properly interpret the evidence? And the purpose of a criminal justice system is not to acquit the guilty.”

Added Justice Sykes: “The purpose of the criminal justice system is to convict the guilty, acquit those who are innocent and those where the evidence is insufficient to establish guilt; that is really the purpose of the criminal justice system, and it serves a broader purpose as well, which is to provide the means and mechanism by which the society determines who is deserving of punishment and who should not be punished.”

The prosecution’s first ever appeal will be most interesting to watch, and the country, we believe, is anxiously awaiting the outcome.