A man who the Privy Council ruled had suffered “a serious miscarriage of justice” because he was detained for 10 years while seeking to reduce 12 years’ worth of sentences to three years received “an acknowledgement and declaration” from the Appeal Court last Friday that his constitutional right to have his appeal heard within a reasonable time was breached.

The court, however, said that Ray Morgan’s “contention that other rights have been breached and that he is entitled to other constitutional reliefs are better left to be ventilated before the Supreme Court, the court with original jurisdiction in these matters”.

Morgan was convicted in February 2011 of four counts of obtaining money by false pretence and was sentenced to three years on each count by a Parish Court judge who stipulated that the sentences should run consecutively, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment.

Morgan, however, gave verbal notice of appeal against both conviction and sentence on the same day he was sentenced and subsequently produced his grounds of appeal to the prison authorities within 21 days of the court’s judgment, as stipulated by law. He argued that his sentences should run concurrently, not consecutively, which would amount to a three-year sentence, of which he would have already served two years.

However, an error on the part of prison authorities resulted in the document outlining the grounds of his appeal being incorrectly submitted to the Court of Appeal instead of the Clerk of Courts.

The Appeal Court labelled the situation “a series of unfortunate events” which made it so that on Morgan’s application for bail pending appeal an appeal court judge ruled that in the absence of any ground of appeal filed within 21 days as required by the Act, any appeal he had was deemed to be abandoned.

Morgan completed serving his sentence, was released from prison, and made an application to have his appeal reinstated.

In 2021 when that petition was heard, the Appeal Court refused the application on the basis that “he did not demonstrate any merit in his appeal against conviction”.

The court also determined that, although his complaints in respect of the sentences that were imposed showed some merit, because he had essentially served those sentences, he would receive no benefit, even if his sentences were adjusted to change the consecutive element to concurrent.

Morgan took his fight to the Privy Council, which in 2023 ruled that Jamaica’s Appeal Court erred in concluding that an appeal against the sentence was “academic” because Morgan had served his sentence and, therefore, would receive no benefit if his appeal succeeded.

According to the Privy Council, the Appeal Court erred in its treatment of the fact that the absence of the judge of the Parish Court’s reasons for imposing consecutive sentences and the inability of the court to consider those reasons was a result of the justice system’s own failure, for which Morgan can bear no responsibility.

The Privy Council also concluded that this court was in error in failing to take into account the wider public interest in the exercise of its discretion under the proviso to hear the appeal, having regard to its general as well as particular significance and the “…strong public interest in ventilating the various administrative errors so that public confidence could be maintained in the judicial system”.

Last Friday, the Appeal Court panel — in acknowledging that Morgan produced his grounds of appeal to the prison authorities on February 12, 2011, and his appeal was not concluded until June 7, 2021, which was a delay in excess of 10 years — said it had chronicled “the events leading to the delay which was wholly the fault of the State”.

“It cannot be reasonably argued that the delay in excess of 10 years before the appeal was heard in this case was demonstrably justifiable, and the Crown quite admirably did not attempt to do so. We find that the delay breached the appellant’s constitutional rights to have his appeal heard within a reasonable time, contrary to sections 16(1) and 16(8) of the Constitution,” the Appeal Court said.

It, however, pointed out that Morgan had already served the sentence ordered by the judge of the Parish Court and would not be entitled to a reduction in sentence as an appropriate remedy.

In answering the question of “what is the appropriate remedy for the breach?” the Appeal Court pointed out that “in the strength of the overwhelming evidence against the appellant, we are of the view that he could not have reasonably entertained any realistic expectation of success on his appeal” against conviction.

In noting that there was merit in his appeal against his sentence, as demonstrated by the Privy Council, the court however noted that the “appeal against the sentence is purely one of law, in respect of which the learned judge’s notes of evidence could provide no material assistance”.

It, however, conceded that “the appellant has demonstrated sufficient prejudice occasioned by the administrative errors of the State that prevented the timely transmission of his grounds of appeal to this court”.

“The sentence imposed by the judge of the Parish Court was also manifestly excessive and was compounded by the delay in the appeal being heard. The result was that, not only did the appellant serve his sentence in full before his appeal was heard, but he served a sentence which we have found was significantly longer than he ought to have served as punishment for his crimes,” the Appeal Court stated.

Addressing Morgan’s claim for constitutional redress, the Appeal Court however said, “The appellant has already served the sentence ordered by the judge of the Parish Court and would not be entitled to a reduction in sentence as an appropriate remedy.”

“He is, nevertheless, entitled to obtain an acknowledgement and declaration from this court that his constitutional rights to have his appeal heard by this court within a reasonable time, in accordance with sections 16(1) and 16(8) of the Constitution, have been breached. The appellant’s contention that other rights have been breached and that he is entitled to other constitutional reliefs are better left to be ventilated before the Supreme Court, the court with original jurisdiction in these matters,” the Appeal Court said.

The Appeal Court, in the meantime, in allowing the appeal set aside the sentences imposed by the Parish Court judge and substituted instead a sentence of three years’ imprisonment on count one, two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment each for counts two and three, and three years on count four. It, however, stipulated that sentences on counts two, three, and four run concurrently but consecutively to the sentence of three years on count one.

“From the aggregate sentence of six years to be served by the appellant, the appellant is credited with a deduction of one year and six months for time spent in pre-sentence custody; accordingly, the appellant is to serve an aggregate sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment. The sentences are reckoned as having commenced on 7 February 2011, the date on which they were imposed by the judge of the Parish Court,” the Appeal Court said further.

Morgan, in effect, has already served the time stipulated.

The ex-convict has had other run-ins with the law. In 2022 he pleaded guilty to defrauding veteran reggae singer Marcia Griffiths of approximately $4.8 million.