Appeal court revises parole terms in Spanish Town beheading case; Justice Edwards calls a 2023 COA ruling ‘doubtful authority’

The Court of Appeal has revised parole eligibility for three men convicted in the 2011 beheading of a mother and daughter in St Catherine, while affirming their life sentences for the killings that shocked the country.

The men - Adrian Campbell, Rushane Goldson, and Fabian - were convicted for the July 2011 murders of 40-year-old Charmaine Cover-Rattray and her 18-year-old daughter, Joeith 'Crystal' Lynch, at their home in Lauriston, Spanish Town. Lynch was a student at The Queen's School.

In a ruling handed down on Friday, the Court of Appeal upheld their life sentences at hard labour on both counts of murder. The first count deals with Clover-Rattray and the second count covers her daughter.

Campbell and Smith were to initially ordered to serve 44 years before being eligible for parole, and Goldson 46 years.

However, the Court of Appeal accepted that the trial judge made several errors in calculating the sentences.

It reduced the parole eligibility period on the first count of murder to 19 years and one month for Campbell and Smith, and 18 years and two months for Goldson.

For the second murder count, the court affirmed parole eligibility of 44 years for Campbell and Smith, and 46 years for Goldson.

While the technical adjustments resulted in shorter parole terms for the first count, the sentences run concurrently. This means the men will remain behind bars for the duration of the longer terms.

The sentences are to run from December 11, 2019, when they were first imposed.

The men argued, among other things, that the sentences were "harsh and excessive" and that the judge made several errors.

The appeal was decided by Justices Carol Edwards, Marcia Dunbar Green, and Georgiana Fraser. The panel heard arguments in July 2024.

The main judgment was written by Justice Dunbar Green. Justice Edwards wrote concurring opinion in which she said a 2023 Court of Appeal decision dealing with discounts in cases of multiple murders is "doubtful authority" and "ought not to be followed".

Justice Fraser, the third judge on panel, said: "I have read the draft judgments of Edwards and Dunbar Green JJA and agree with the reasoning and conclusion of Dunbar Green JA. There is nothing that I wish to add."

Attorney George Clue represented Campbell while Leonard Green represented Goldson and Smith.

The prosecution was represented by Alice-Ann Gabbidon and Kimberly Guy-Reid.

What the Court of Appeal said

In a case described by the original sentencing judge, Viviene Harris as “the worst of the worst,” a group of men forcibly entered the victims' home on the night of July 19, 2011, chopping and shooting the women before beheading them. Harris is now a court of appeal judge.

Campbell, Goldson, and Smith pleaded guilty to the crimes in November 2019, and a month later were each sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labour.

They were granted permission in November 2021 to appeal their sentences.

While the appellate court intervened to correct technical errors in how the sentences were calculated for the first count of murder, it largely upheld the heavy penalties for the second count.

The appeal court also argued that the application of a discount to count two "was an error in law".

The court found that the trial judge failed to apply the "deeming provision" of the Criminal Justice (Administration) (Amendment) Act (CJAA). This provision requires a life sentence to be treated as a 30-year term for the purpose of calculating a guilty plea discount.

The appeal court accepted the prosecution's submission that the sentencing judge "erred" in how she arrived at the minimum pre-parole periods for count one. The judge used 45 years as the starting point.

The court also accepted there were instances of double counting after the defence argued that the judge erroneously relied on the same aggravating factors both to set the starting point of 45 years and to justify an upward adjustment.

The appeal court noted that based on the CJAA, the starting point for a first count of murder cannot exceed 30 years where life imprisonment and a discount for a guilty plea are being contemplated by a sentencing judge.

Revising the sentences for the first murder count (the killing of Charmaine Clover-Rattray)

In revising the sentences, the Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge correctly concluded that the murders fell within the category of the “worst of the worst” killings. However, it said the trial judge erred in how she calculated the minimum pre-parole period for the first murder count.

Under Jamaican law, the Offences Against the Person Act sets a minimum threshold of 15 years before parole eligibility, while the Criminal Justice (Administration) (Amendment) Act treats a life sentence as a maximum of 30 years when calculating a guilty-plea discount.

Dunbar Green said that once the trial judge decided to grant a discount for the guilty pleas, she could not lawfully apply a sentencing range of 25 to 45 years or use 45 years as the starting point.

Instead, the Court of Appeal said the correct range was 15 to 29 years, as established in previous cases. The court concluded that the killings warranted a starting point near the top of the range because of several aggravating factors, including premeditation, a reprisal motive, multiple perpetrators acting in concert, the use of deadly weapons, the nighttime home invasion, and the impact on the community.

The court also pointed to the gruesome nature of the killings, noting that the victims were shot, chopped and beheaded.

Justice Dunbar Green wrote that these factors justified a starting point of 28 years for the minimum pre-parole period on the first count.

The court then considered mitigating factors, including that the men had no previous convictions, had been gainfully employed, and expressed remorse.

However, Dunbar Green said those considerations were "far outweighed" by the aggravating features of the crimes, warranting only a modest downward adjustment.

The court applied a five per cent discount for the guilty pleas, equivalent to one year and six months.

The court also deducted eight years and five months for time the men spent in custody before their trial ended.

The Court of Appeal on the second murder count (killing of 18-year-old Joeith 'Crystal' Lynch)

The appeal court left the second murder count largely unchanged, noting that Jamaican law requires heavier punishment for multiple killings.

"It bears repeating that the second count of murder, in the instant case, involved a teenage victim who was chopped repeatedly, shot, and beheaded, mirroring the fate of her mother. These facts place the offence among the most egregious in this jurisdiction," said Justice Dunbar Green.

Under Jamaican law, statutory discounts for guilty pleas do not apply to cases involving multiple murders.

Justice Edwards noted that such killings invariably "shock the public conscience," and Parliament intentionally withheld the power to apply discounts in these circumstances.

The appellants had also argued that they acted under duress, claiming fear of a local gang leader known as "the General" and that the sentencing judge did not consider those issues.

The Court of Appeal flatly rejected that argument as a mitigating factor.

Justice Dunbar Green said that the way the men were mobilised reflected a “business as usual” approach. "There was no evidence of hesitation, resistance, or any form of coercion," she said in the 63-page opinion. "Adrian Campbell threw away Crystal’s decapitated head in a gully, Rushane Goldson participated in chopping Crystal, and Fabian Smith volunteered to act as lookout."

Justice Dunbar Green added: "The killings were executed in a heinous and barbaric manner (deliberate and purposeful even), and at no point before, during, or after was there any demonstrable absence of free will. The appellants described no imminent threat or compelling pressure that deprived them of choice. They exposed themselves to the perceived risk, made no effort to seek help or withdraw, and offered no evidence of threats or overt compulsion."

The court ruled that a "mere complaint about a threat" is insufficient to qualify as duress in such heinous circumstances.

The court accepted that the trial judge’s starting point of 45 years for the second count was appropriate.

While the court acknowledged mitigating factors, including expressions of remorse and previous employment, it noted that time spent on remand cannot be credited twice.

Justice Edwards and a 2023 Court of Appeal Decision

Meanwhile, Justice Edwards argued that the 2023 Court of Appeal decision in the Javone Leslie case "out not to be followed" because it improperly bypasses statutory prohibitions by attempting to reintroduce common law sentencing discounts that Parliament has explicitly codified and restricted.

In the Leslie case, the Court of Appeal, by majority, ruled that while the Criminal Justice (Administration) (Amendment) Act prohibits statutory guilty-plea discounts in multiple murder cases, sentencing judges may still apply common law principles to grant a reduction.

Dunbar Green was a member of the panel that decided the Leslie case but she dissented. The other two judges were Justices Frank Williams and Nicole Foster-Pusey.

Said Edwards, "The approach in Javone Leslie and Jamelia Leslie v R circumvents a valid legislative prescription, and, respectfully, it ought not to be followed."

She added, "Javone Leslie and Jamelia Leslie v R, I believe, is doubtful authority, as it seeks to bypass the statutory provisions, by invoking a common law discretion contrary to the statute’s express terms, and will, therefore, not be followed."

Edwards noted that in a 2025 case, Justice Williams "clarified that where a defendant pleads guilty to multiple counts of murder committed on the same or different occasions, the statutory framework permits a discount only in relation to the first count".

She added: "This interpretation, from which Foster-Pusey dissented, reflects a strict construction of the statutory language and reinforces the limits of judicial discretion under section 42C of the CJAA."

Edwards warned that granting a “common law discount” for multiple murders would effectively undermine the mandatory provisions of the Offences Against the Person Act and the restrictions contained in the CJAA.

Justice Edwards also cautioned that allowing judges to exercise such discretion could lead to inconsistent sentencing, where one judge might grant a discount while another declines it in similar cases.

"It would further be incongruous for judicial discretion to operate in circumstances where the statutory regime is designed expressly to withhold its application. This would be to reintroduce the very absence of structure that the CJAA was designed to eliminate. There is nothing to suggest that this was the intention of Parliament," she said, adding that "the CJAA marked a deliberate departure from the state of uncertainty where the extent of the allowable discount for a guilty plea had never been fixed. It would further be incongruous for Parliament to regulate with precision the sentencing discounts applicable to lesser offences, such as theft, yet leave the treatment of multiple murders to the vagaries of judicial discretion."

Follow The Gleaner on X, formerly Twitter, and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.