Oliver v. The Queen (The Bahamas)

Oliver v. The Queen (The Bahamas) [2007] UKPC 9 (26 February 2007)

Privy Council Appeal No 21 of 2005

Marco Oliver Appellant

v.

The Queen Respondent

FROM

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF

THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL

COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL

Delivered the 26th February 2007

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Lord Scott of Foscote

Baroness Hale of Richmond

Lord Carswell

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Delivered by Lord Carswell]

In July 1999 the appellant Marco Oliver committed a number of serious offences, for which, after various appearances in court, he was given a series of sentences of imprisonment. Some of the sentences were made consecutive and the total came to an effective sentence of 42 years. He brought an appeal to the Court of Appeal of The Bahamas in July 2002, but so far from reducing the sentences, the court increased them to an effective sentence of 55 years, to run from the date of the judgment. The appellant has appealed with special leave to the Privy Council.

The offences for which the appellant was sentenced were committed between 9 and 22 July 1999. They consisted of two rapes, two attempted rapes, two kidnappings, eight armed robberies, two robberies with violence, one attempted robbery with violence and one burglary. It is not necessary for the purposes of this appeal to set out the details of the offences. It is sufficient to say that they were grave offences meriting condign punishment and the fact that the appellant was, as he stated, in the grip of a drug addiction and seeking to obtain money to pay for his drug habit is little excuse. Mr Guthrie QC, who appeared for the appellant before the Board, rightly accepted at the outset that they were bound to be met with substantial sentences. He advanced his arguments primarily on the power of the Court of Appeal to order an increase and the fairness of its taking that course, the issues on which special leave to appeal was given. In dealing with the appellant's constitutional right to a fair hearing he touched upon such issues as the totality principle, the propriety of ordering consecutive sentences, the account to be taken of guilty pleas and early admissions of guilt, the date from which the sentences should run and the appellant's individual circumstances. None of these was referred to by the Court of Appeal in its judgment.

The appellant, who was born on 17 September 1974 and was aged 24 years at the time of the offences, had a history of approximately twelve previous offences, going back to 1986, when he was aged 12 years. They consisted…

CaseChat Overview and Summary