Grand Court Justice Marlene Carter has dismissed an application from a man convicted of possessing an unlicensed gun to withdraw his guilty plea after he claimed the weapon was not lethal.
Eddie Marlon Ebanks believes the pistol, found at his George Town home last year, was incapable of discharging a bullet at the speed needed to cause harm or death.
But in a ruling delivered on 2 Oct., Carter said tests revealed the gun was in good working condition and “capable of discharging deadly bullets from its barrel”.
Ebanks faces up to seven years in prison for the offence under the Firearms Act.
On 1 July 2022, police executed a search warrant at Ebanks’ home, during which he admitted he was keeping a gun that he had found days earlier in his bedroom.
He told officers the weapon was in a chest of drawers and when they looked they found a two-toned black and olive 9mm Luger pistol with an empty magazine and no serial number.
Ebanks was arrested on suspicion of possession of an unlicensed firearm and cautioned.
On 5 July, police technician Leesa Mullings examined the semi-automatic gun.
She pulled the trigger five times, and on the fifth pull discharged a bullet. She then adjusted the connector and when she fired again, the gun discharged on the first pull.
Ebanks, who was not a registered firearm owner, entered a guilty plea on 30 Sept. 2022.
Retraction of plea
Ebanks applied for leave to vacate his guilty plea in Grand Court on 18 Sept. this year, and the proceedings were published on 2 Oct. on the Judicial Administration website.
Defence attorney John Furniss argued that there were several reasons that the defendant should be allowed to retract his plea.
He said, Ebanks’ previous counsel had misrepresented certain facts to him which led him to plead guilty.
Secondly, there was an absence of evidence that the firearm was capable of discharging a bullet at the force necessary to cause injury or death, Furniss said.
The attorney added that the gun was manipulated by the expert to be made to be in working order, and if it had not been, it may not have been capable of shooting at all.
Fourthly, there was a breach of rules surrounding disclosure, Furniss claimed in his arguments.
And finally, he said, there was evidence of ‘police procedural impropriety’ as the firearm was in an altered state, according to his application in the judgment.
Furniss argued that it “would be unjust” not to allow Ebanks to change his plea.
‘No interference’
In response, according to the judgment, Crown prosecutor Kenneth Ferguson said the case against Ebanks was “a very strong one”.
He said that at all times he was represented by competent counsel, and his previous counsel – attorney Dennis Brady – denied any assertions of misrepresentation.
Ferguson added that there was no merit in submissions of police impropriety in the handling of the weapon, and it was not interfered with or manipulated.
He submitted that no repairs were needed to cause the gun to discharge a shot, just “multiple, rapid pulls of the trigger”.
The prosecutor also said there had been no defence complaint of outstanding disclosure before the arraignment.
In her judgment, Carter said the test is whether the court is satisfied that it should exercise its discretion to allow the defendant to vacate their guilty plea.
This should happen if it appeared that to not do so would cause the defendant to be deprived of a good defence in law which was likely to have succeeded, she explained.
Carter agreed with prosecution that there was no deficiency with the firearm and it was capable of discharging deadly bullets.
She added that the defendant was given all the relevant documents from his former counsel.
In conclusion, Carter said that none of the matters raised by the applicant would have allowed for a good defence that was likely to succeed.
She dismissed his application for change of plea.
Related Videos
