Romaine Thomas (Appellant) v The King (Respondent) (Jamaica)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0002

Jurisdiction

Jamaica

Parties

Appellant(s)

Romaine Thomas

Respondent(s)

The King (Jamaica)

Issue

(1) Was the evidence sufficient to convict the Appellant of joint enterprise murder and reject his “no case to answer” submission? (2) Did the lack of a transcript of the judge’s sentencing preclude the Court of Appeal from properly reviewing that sentencing? (3) Did the Court of Appeal breach the Appellant’s Constitutional rights in upholding the Appellant’s sentence?

Facts

On 17 April 2009, the Appellant was convicted by a jury of three counts of joint enterprise murder for three killings that took place on 22 February 2004. On 31 July 2009, the Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole before 20 years’ imprisonment. The Appellant appeals against both conviction and sentence, and claims that the Court of Appeal breached his Constitutional rights. Central to the prosecution case at trial was the identification of the Appellant by a witness, Stephan Williams (“SW”). SW gave evidence that, on 22 February 2004, he saw two men walking with and holding tightly two of the three victims. SW then saw two (different) armed men, who he knew only as “Junior” and “Pogo”, running towards his house. Shortly afterwards, gunshots were fired into SW’s house. SW did not see who shot at his house. At trial, undisputed ballistics evidence suggested the guns used to shoot at SW’s house had also been used to commit the murders. No identity parade was held but, at trial, SW identified the Appellant from the witness box as “Pogo”. SW said that he had known the Appellant for three years and seen the Appellant daily. The Appellant denied that he was known as “Pogo” and asserted his innocence. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the Appellant made a “no case to answer” submission. The judge rejected that submission. The Appellant was then convicted on all counts by the jury. The Court of Appeal upheld both conviction and sentence, notwithstanding that the transcript of the judge’s sentencing decision was not (and still is not) available. The Court of Appeal then refused permission to appeal its decision on the basis that the Appellant had sought permission out of time. The Appellant now appeals directly to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Date of issue

15 January 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top