NORMA Lyn Dawes, the Kingston woman who was in December last year found guilty of murdering her estranged partner — himself a convicted killer on the run — disgruntled with her guilty verdict fired her team of attorneys, thus leading to her sentencing hearing which was scheduled for Monday being set back.

Supreme Court judge, Justice Leighton Pusey, in quashing her argument of self-defence and declaring her guilty, had said that based on the evidence before the court he concluded that the woman had inflicted all three wounds to the victim Oshane Coley, one of which was fatal. Furthermore, he said she was “not acting in lawful self-defence” and had lied on several occasions in giving evidence. Dawes, at the time of conviction, had insisted that she was not treated fairly and declared that she wanted new attorneys.

When she reappeared before Justice Pusey at the Supreme Court in downtown Kingston on Monday, attorney Paul Gentles — who along with Kemar Setal had represented Dawes — informed the court that Dawes had retained counsel to address the issue of sentencing.

“I have no instructions to that effect formally from Miss Dawes for any other attorney, who I would have expected would have informed me of such. I have no instructions from her to address the matter of sentencing either,” Gentles said cursorily.

Dawes, asked by the judge whether she had retained a new lawyer or if she spoke with anyone about representing her, answered in the negative to both queries, pointing out that she had indicated at her last appearance before the court that she did not wish for Gentles or Setal to continue representing her.

“Understand now, madam, that you are at the stage of sentencing. This is the time when the court, having looked at the evidence, makes a decision as to what sentence you would get. This is still a part of the legal process and it would be helpful for you to have legal advice to indicate what are the possible sentences that you may get and also what thing you might want to say to the court at this stage,” Justice Pusey schooled.

Asked whether she wanted to retain an attorney to address the court on sentencing ahead of his judgement Dawes said, “Your Honour, I can say what I need to say. As I said before, there was nothing to charge me with murder.”

Justice Pusey, however, informed her that the court had already settled on her conviction but pointed out that the option of an appeal of the sentence, once handed down, remained open.

“Having decided that you are guilty the court is going to decide what is the appropriate sentence…that is the process that we are involved in and for that process, legal advice is as necessary as it is during the first process in relation to the trial,” Justice Pusey explained.

He said while he could proceed without her having legal representation, it was in her best interest to have an attorney to advise her.

Dawes, however, stated that having passed through several lawyers, they had all failed to “relate what [she] has been through [and] what [she is] going through”.

“I think I am the best person to express that to the court. As you said, I can peruse the documents and put forward my stance,” Dawes appealed, stating that she was still at a loss as to why she had “been found guilty for murder”.

“It is your right to think that you ought not to have been found guilty,” Justice Pusey said in telling Dawes that even if she wished to speak for herself she would still be better off getting legal advice, given that there is a whole range of penalties for murder, and since she had lost confidence in her legal team.

Dawes, however, persisted, stating that she had prepared a letter to the chief justice seeking his intervention in her case. According to Dawes, she had garnered this opinion that the head of the judiciary could intervene, based on an interview he supposedly did where he stated that he looked over all court files.

“No madam; when matters are tried in the courts the trial judge is the person who makes the decision…it’s not a situation where the chief justice is a supervisor and can say: ‘Change your mind in relation to this.’ It is the trial judge who makes the determination,” he stated, adding that the appeal court reviews disputed judgements.

“This indicates why you need legal advice because you have a misunderstanding in law as to how things happen. In other words, you are of the view that the chief justice has power to say to another judge that, ‘You made this decision wrong; you should do it another way,’ [but] there is no such power. We make our decisions independent of each other so you may be assisted greatly by having some legal guidance — if you are willing to accept,” Justice Pusey said further.

After Dawes grudgingly accepted the offer of the court to locate an attorney to assist her, Justice Pusey adjourned the matter to this Friday, February 24.

According to details unveiled during the trial, Dawes and Coley were involved in an on-and-off relationship characterised by verbal and physical abuse. Coley was one of three men who, in 2017, had absconded bail during trial on murder charges but were sentenced in their absence to life imprisonment.

Things reportedly came to a head in the rocky relationship on the night of March 8, 2019 when, during an altercation, Dawes allegedly barricaded herself in her room, only to have her ex-boyfriend climb through a window and attack her.

Dawes said that during the struggle that ensued she picked up an object off the ground, “which happened to be a knife”, and stabbed Coley, who ran from the room, climbed over a wall, and was later found dead on the street some distance away.

Gentles had argued that the issues of self-defence and provocation “loomed large” in the case. Gentles said his client had repeatedly said she “never meant to kill him and was trying to protect herself”.