The Court of Appeal has suggested that the government reconsider an amendment to the Penal Code which purports to define a life sentence.

The appellate court highlighted problems created by the 2011 amendment that was designed to remove the uncertainty of a life sentence by defining it as the remainder of an offender's life, in the case of Angelo Poitier, who was sentenced to life for the October 7, 2010 murder of Shanise Adderley.

Poitier appealed against the sentence on the grounds that it was unduly severe. The tribunal of Court President Anita Allen and Justices of Appeal Abdulai Conteh and Neville Adderley set aside the life sentence because it was too uncertain.

While Poitier did not challenge the constitutionality of the life sentence, the court set out the constitutional problems raised by the amendment and the difficulty judges face in determining an appropriate sentence for a murder convict.

Allen pointed out that unlike other jurisdictions, there is no qualification that provides for a mandatory minimum term to be served before release.

Allen pointed out that despite Parliament's intention for lifers to die in prison, article 90 of the Constitution gives the governor general the power to pardon a convict.

Allen said, "By exercise of that power, the governor general, in whom the executive authority of the government is vested, may determine that a convicted person should serve something less than the whole of his life."

"Inasmuch as the power to exercise clemency is constitutionally reserved exclusively to the governor general, the life sentence must always be construed as subject to the exercise of that power. Parliament could not take away from the governor general the constitutional power to determine that the convict, for whatever reason, need not suffer the punishment the court says he deserves."

As it stands, the duration of the life sentence at the time of its pronouncement is unknown to the judge and convict, the court said.

Additionally, there is no requirement for consultation with the judiciary before the exercise of mercy in relation to a life sentence as is required by the constitution in relation to a death sentence.

More importantly, Allen said the amendment provision that seeks to impose imprisonment for a convict's natural life "raises the specter of unconstitutionality and might well run afoul of the article 17 of the Constitution which protects every person from subjection to torture, or to inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment".

Allen suggested that judges should be given the statory power to determine the minimum sentence a convict serves when he or she receives a life sentence so that there would be some certainty regarding the duration of the detention.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian