No facts to inform jail time in Ebanks’ case, argues QC

Leonard Antonio Ebanks

(CNS): The court is facing a catalogue of problems surrounding the sentencing of Leonard Antonio Ebanks for accessory to the 2008 murder of Swiss banker, Frederic Bise, his lead counsel argued Monday. Following his conviction last month in the cold case, Ebanks was due to learn his fate today but Courtney Griffths QC made submissions that the court will have significant difficulty working out on what basis it can sentence his client.

Ebanks had been charged with just one count of murder and the possibility of an alternative count of accessory, which was only made clear late in the trial proceedings. As a result, what evidence there is to support what the crown claims he actually did is largely missing or inconsistent, according to the lawyer. He said it was never tested under cross-examination and there is no specific basis for the judge to come to a decision about the appropriate jail time.

The crown cannot say with certainty what part Ebanks played in the aftermath of the crime, he told the court,  pointing out that his client still takes the position that he was not there and was not involved.

Even the crown has recognised the problem, he said, as it has started its submissions about Ebanks’ sentence with the words “it seems that…” before outlining what it claims Ebanks did when he helped to dispose of Bise’s body after he was killed by Chad Anglin by putting it in the banker’s own car and setting it alight. The crown says that Ebanks destroyed the breeze blocks believed to have been used to kill Bise. The prosecution also claims that Ebanks stole certain items from Bise’s home and then assisted with the burning of his and Anglin’s clothes.

But all of this is largely unsupported, Griffiths claimed, as he pointed to inconsistencies in the crown’s two key witnesses about what had happened and what they both said Ebanks did. The fact that the crown is saying “it seems” and not pointing to facts in the wake of the trial illustrates the problem, the lawyer said, but in order to come to a decision about how long Ebanks should serve the judge will need to know the level of participation and culpability in the crime.

“What is the factual basis on which this man will be sentenced?” Griffiths asked, noting the list of problems in his submissions that he believes the court will face. Without a factual basis on which to sentence coming from the trial proceedings, he said, the judge was being asked to be a surrogate jury and guess what was in their minds when they opted to convict Ebanks with accessory after the fact and not murder. He said it was an unfair situation because Ebanks should know exactly what evidence is being used to justify a specific jail term.

The problem that Griffiths posed is in some respects academic, since Ebanks is already serving a life sentence for the murder of Tyrone Burrell in West Bay in 2010. Ebanks was handed the mandatory life sentence in 2011, so the additional time for this conviction will run concurrently.

However, last year government passed legislation to introduce a tariff system for life sentences, which opens the window of opportunity for those serving mandatory life since they may be released on parole after they have served a minimum sentence set by the courts.

This means that if Ebanks makes an application for a tariff for his life sentence of murder once the new law comes into force, the court’s decision on how long he should serve will take into consideration this conviction as well and the length of time he is given will be an important part of that consideration.

The legal arguments over how Ebanks should be sentenced by Justice Charles Quin, in what Griffiths said were an unusual set of circumstances, as well as submissions on the actually sentencing are to be continued.