The State v Marcus Jason Daniel

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Ramsumair-Hinds, J.
• Judgment Date: 21 May 2025
• Neutral Citation: TT 2025 HC 146
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: Suit No.: CR-HC-POS-IND-1-2022-2 (CR 0028/2003)

The State

and

Marcus Jason Daniel

Ramsumair-Hinds, J.

Suit No.: CR-HC-POS-IND-1-2022-2 (CR 0028/2003)

High Court

Appearances:

Ms. C. Samuel and Mr. R. Bassant for the State.

Mr. S. Wilson and Ms. M. Gonzalez of the Public Defenders' Department for the Prisoner.

SENTENCE REVIEW NO. 2

SENTENCE REVIEW

Ramsumair-Hinds, J.

1 The Prisoner Marcus Jason Daniel has come up before me for his second sentence review.

2 On 14 December 2005, the Prisoner and another (a minor) were both convicted for the murder of the Prisoner's 16-year-old cousin Suzette Gibson, which occurred on 23 January 2002. The Prisoner was 25 years old at the time of the killing, and upon his conviction, he was sentenced to the mandatory death penalty. On 27 May 2014, his appeal was allowed and a verdict of manslaughter substituted on the ground of diminished responsibility. The Court of Appeal sentenced him to serve an indeterminate term as follows:

“The Appellant is to remain in custody at the Court's pleasure with a review every three years. The Appellant to serve a minimum of 25 years imprisonment. Sentence to run from date of conviction, with time spent in prison prior to conviction to be credited. The Appellant to begin serving sentence at St Ann's Hospital.”

3 For reasons which I need not now detail, the Prisoner did not come up for review for several years, and even when his matter was listed, there were a number of delays. On 28 November 2023, I concluded the Prisoner's first review. I determined that the Prisoner would remain under the sentence of Detention at the Court's Pleasure and continue serving the minimum term of 25 years, subject to reviews.

4 The decision handed down on that date is available in writing and is summarised below:

• a. Based primarily on the observations of the Hospital Director at the St Ann's Psychiatric Hospital, a Hospital Order was not required (see para 58);

• b. There appeared to be a significant risk that the Prisoner would infringe the law. The risk of violence was lower if the Prisoner was confined to a structured setting (see para 57(d));

• c. Having regard both to the brutality of the killing (including an appreciation of the preparatory acts and post-offence conduct), and the risk to society if released, I found no justification to release the Prisoner on licence before the expiration of his minimum term. It was in the public's interest that he should continue to serve the minimum term (see para 67);

• d. I found no reason to depart from the 25-year minimum term as calculated by the Court of Appeal;

• e. With the expiration of the minimum term fast approaching and, in an effort to encourage and facilitate rehabilitation and reintegration of the Prisoner to improve his prospects for a successful reintegration into society, I recommended that the Prisoner be allowed to participate in prison programmes which promote personal growth and development; and

• f. As the Public Defenders' Department and the Legal Aid and Advisory Authority had embarked upon efforts to obtain a private psychiatric assessment, which was not available for that first review as hoped, I directed that the next review should be conducted in one year's time.

5 The Prisoner is now before me for his second sentence review. I am urged to find favour with the assertion that the Prisoner has punitively paid the price for killing his cousin and that no useful purpose would be served by his continued detention. Indeed, he has been incarcerated now for more than 23 years. Defence Counsel invite me to consider an order which places the Prisoner at the Vision on Mission Rehabilitation and Reintegration Centre for the remainder of the 25-year minimum term.

6 I have considered the guidance of the Court of Appeal in Chuck Attin No. 2 v. The State Cr. App. No. 29 of 2004. At page 4, the Court noted thus:

“It is to be noted that the expression ‘minimum term’ is used in place of ‘tariff’ in order to make it clear that even when released, the offender has not served his sentence, and that the sentence continues for the remainder of his life. The expression does not mean the minimum term to be served before the case is reviewed.

A sentencing judge who orders release, after a review, must be satisfied that the offender is no longer a risk to the public and is ready for release into society.”

7 In assessing whether the Prisoner still poses a risk to the public and if he is ready for release into society, I have duly considered the Bio-Social Report (30 October 2024), the Probation Officer's Report (22 November 2024), a letter from the NGO Vision On Mission Reintegration and Resettlement Programme (VOM) (25 November 2024) and the legal submissions filed by his attorneys on 7 April 2025. I am especially thankful for the candid observations.

8 I fully expected to have the privately sourced Psychiatric Report for this second review, but there is none. (I must acknowledge that the LAAA's efforts to secure such an evaluation and report account for much of the delay in my ability to complete the first review. Deputy Chief Public Defender Mr. Morgan (as the Judge then was) indicated in writing that “between February 2023 and August 2023, the Defence sought the services of five separate psychiatrists on behalf of the Prisoner. Notwithstanding the Defence's best efforts, same proved futile as each of the psychiatrists indicated an inability/reluctance to assess the Prisoner”.) I can only consider what is produced to me.

9 The Bio-Social Report from the Prison provides as follows:

• a. The Prisoner...