JUSTICE EVEN FOR A WITNESS THAT WAS KILLED WHILE WAITING TO TESTIFY IN THIS TRIAL
From Denesia Gray’s identification to Karo Outten’s recorded statement and a WhatsApp voice note: the evidence the Court of Appeal found sufficient to uphold Kendell Dean’s conviction for Joshua Swann’s murder
Tuesday 11th August 2026 – PROVIDENCIALES, Turks and Caicos Islands
— Forty-seven days after Kendell Dean’s successful appeal against his conviction for the 2018 murder of Judah Gail, another man was shot and killed.
That man was Joshua Swann.
On 8 August 2021, in the vicinity of Northwest Point, Blue Hills, Providenciales, the Crown alleged that Dean shot Swann multiple times at “Close or Point-blank range” following inquiries about a missing phone.
Dean denied being the shooter.
He maintained that he was at home in Wheeland, Blue Hills, at the relevant time and therefore could not have been present at the beach gathering or the shooting.
The central question for the second jury was therefore identity: Had the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that Kendell Dean was the gunman who killed Joshua Swann?
In April 2024, the jury answered, yes.
On 22 April 2024, Dean was convicted of murder following a trial before Justice Baptiste and a jury. On 10 June 2024, he was sentenced to life imprisonment with eligibility for consideration of release on licence after 30 years, with two years, nine months and 28 days spent on remand taken into account.
Dean appealed again.
This time, however, the Court of Appeal has rejected every substantive ground.
WHAT THE CROWN PUT BEFORE THE SECOND JURY
The prosecution’s case was considerably broader than the evidence that had supported the first conviction.
The Crown relied principally on eyewitness identification from Denesia Gray, who was present during the shooting.
It also relied on evidence from Trevondre Basden, who placed Dean at the beach shortly before the shooting.
Then there was the evidence of Karo Outten, another eyewitness who had given police a video-recorded statement but died before the trial. He too was shot and killed, police believe to avoid his testimony against Dean in the trial. He was living overseas after providing police with the statement against Dean but came back home months later and was killed not too long after his arrival.
Because Outten was unavailable to testify and could not be cross-examined, the Crown applied to have his recorded statement admitted under section 8 of the Evidence (Special Provisions) Act, Chapter 2:07.
The prosecution also relied on electronic evidence, including a WhatsApp voice note allegedly sent by Dean the day after the shooting, evidence obtained from mobile phones and Dean’s own police interview.
It was this combination of evidence that ultimately distinguished the second case from the first.
DENESIA GRAY AND THE NAME “MADDIE”
Gray’s evidence was particularly important because she said she saw the shooter and identified him as “Maddie.”
According to the evidence reproduced in the Court of Appeal judgment, Gray described Maddie arguing with Joshua while Joshua was inside a vehicle.
She said Maddie walked to the passenger side, opened the rear door and leaned inside while the argument continued.
Gray testified that this was when Maddie began shooting.
The prosecution’s case was that Dean was known by the nickname “Maddie.”
Basden provided another piece of the identification evidence.
He testified about who had been present at the gathering and identified “Maddie” as one of the people at the beach and around Simpsons Yard.
The Court of Appeal judgment also records that Acting Inspector Leorick Reynolds gave evidence that Basden identified Dean in a photographic identification procedure.
This evidence was important because it was not simply a case of the Crown saying that Dean had been identified by one person at the scene. The prosecution sought to place the nickname “Maddie,” Dean’s identity and Dean’s presence around the location together as part of a wider evidential chain.
KARO OUTTEN’S STATEMENT — THE WITNESS WHO WAS KILLED BEFORE THE TRIAL
One of the most significant legal battles at the second trial concerned the deceased Karo Outten.
Outten had given police a video-recorded statement that implicated Dean.
But by the time the case reached trial, Outten was dead.
That created an obvious problem for the defence: Dean’s attorney could not cross-examine him.
The Crown therefore relied upon section 8 of the Evidence (Special Provisions) Act to seek admission of the recorded evidence.
The application was made during the fifth week of the trial.
Dean’s lawyers argued that this was unfair because the defence had conducted its case on the understanding that the prosecution’s principal identification evidence came from Denesia Gray. In their submission, bringing Outten’s statement into the case at that late stage fundamentally strengthened the Crown’s case and deprived Dean of a fair opportunity to respond.
The Court of Appeal accepted that the application was made late and said that applications of this kind should ordinarily be made as early as reasonably possible.
But lateness, by itself, did not establish unfairness.
The Court found that the defence had actually known about Outten’s witness statements and video recording before trial. The possibility of an application under section 8 had also been discussed before the trial.
Most importantly, the Court concluded that Outten’s evidence did not change the fundamental nature of the Crown’s case.
From the beginning, the prosecution had alleged that Dean was the man who shot Swann.
Outten’s evidence strengthened that case, but it did not introduce a completely new allegation or an entirely different factual case.
The Court therefore rejected the complaint.
THE COURT’S CONCERN ABOUT FAIRNESS
The appellate judges nevertheless recognised the constitutional importance of the issue.
An accused person is entitled to know, with reasonable clarity, the case he has to meet so that he can properly prepare and present a defence.
The fact that evidence is legally capable of being admitted does not automatically mean that its admission will always be fair.
The Court therefore examined whether the late admission of Outten’s evidence materially prejudiced Dean’s ability to defend himself.
It concluded that it did not.
The trial judge had also provided warnings to the jury about the limitations of hearsay evidence, including the fact that Outten could not be cross-examined.
The Court ultimately held that the admission of the recorded statement did not create the level of prejudice necessary to make the trial unfair.
Ground Two of the appeal was dismissed.
WHAT ABOUT THE CROWN’S DISCLOSURE DUTY?
Dean’s third ground attacked the Crown’s handling of information relating to Outten’s credibility.
His lawyers argued that because the Crown had chosen to rely upon evidence from a witness who was unavailable for cross-examination, the prosecution had a heightened obligation to investigate and disclose information that might undermine that witness.
The defence relied upon the UK Supreme Court decision R v Horncastle and Others [2009] UKSC 14, which addresses fairness where hearsay evidence from an unavailable witness forms part of a prosecution case.
The Court of Appeal accepted the general principle.
Where hearsay evidence plays a significant role, the Crown may have to make reasonable inquiries into matters that could affect the witness’s credibility and disclose material capable of assisting the defence.
But the Court drew an important distinction between a legitimate disclosure complaint and speculation about information that might exist.
Dean’s lawyers suggested that there could have been police intelligence concerning Outten, possible criminal investigations involving him, inducements or other material affecting his credibility.
The problem, the Court said, was that no actual undisclosed material had been identified.
The complaint essentially asked the Court to assume that further investigation might have produced something useful.
The appellate judges said that the prosecution’s obligation was one of reasonable diligence, not an unlimited duty to investigate every hypothetical possibility.
Ground Three was dismissed.
THE WHATSAPP VOICE NOTE
The fourth ground brought the case into the world of electronic evidence.
Police recovered a WhatsApp voice note from the mobile phone of Dalex Charles.
The contact was saved under the name “Maddie.”
The number associated with that contact was +1 (649) 348-3708.
The voice note had been sent on 9 August 2021, the day after Joshua Swann was killed.
The prosecution argued that Dean was known as “Maddie” and that the voice note was attributable to him.
Dean challenged the evidence.
His lawyers argued that there was insufficient proof that the voice note was actually his, that its contents were ambiguous and that its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.
When the recording was played to Dean during his police interview, he was asked whether he recognised the voice.
His answer was:
“It sounds like me but I dont know.”
That response became part of the evidential picture.
The trial judge ultimately ruled that there was sufficient evidence connecting the “Maddie” contact and telephone number to Dean.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge had an evidential foundation upon which to reach that conclusion.
The appellate court also made an important distinction: the voice note was not an explicit confession.
It did not expressly mention Joshua Swann, the shooting or the events of 8 August 2021.
However, that did not make it inadmissible.
The question of what the words meant and what inference should be drawn from them was ultimately a matter for the jury to consider alongside the rest of the evidence.
Ground Four was dismissed.
THERE WAS NO EXPERT VOICE ANALYSIS
The Court did not ignore the weakness identified by the defence.
There had been no expert voice analysis conducted to determine whether the recording was Dean’s voice.
The trial judge specifically warned the jury about that.
The jury was told to approach the voice note cautiously and was reminded that Dean maintained he was not at the scene and had instead been at home.
The judge also made clear that even if the jury concluded Dean had lied about his alibi, that alone did not prove that the eyewitness identification was correct.
The voice note therefore had to be considered in the context of the entire case.
That distinction became important on appeal.
The Court of Appeal accepted that the voice note could be significant, but it was not the only evidence against Dean.
There was eyewitness testimony.
There was the hearsay evidence admitted under statute.
There was electronic evidence.
There was Dean’s own police interview.
The appellate court therefore rejected the argument that the voice note, standing alone, determined the outcome.
THE FINAL CHALLENGE — DID THE JUDGE PROPERLY DIRECT THE JURY?
Dean’s fifth ground concerned the judge’s directions to the jury about the WhatsApp recording.
The defence argued that jurors should have been expressly told that before relying on the recording, they first needed to be satisfied that:
- Dean made the recording;
- Dean sent it to Dalex Charles; and
- the words in the recording referred to Joshua Swann’s shooting.
The Court accepted that such wording might have been desirable.
But the legal test was whether the summing-up, viewed as a whole, properly equipped the jury to determine the case fairly.
The appellate court concluded that it did.
The jury had been told about how the recording was obtained, that it was attributed by the prosecution to “Maddie,” that no expert voice analysis had been conducted and that it was ultimately for the jury to determine what weight should be given to it.
The Court therefore held that the directions were adequate.
Ground Five was dismissed.
THE COURT OF APPEAL’S FINAL DECISION
The three-member Court of Appeal — President Justice Yorke-Soo Hon, Justice of Appeal Turner and Justice of Appeal Minott-Phillips — delivered judgment on 29 July 2026.
Dean was represented by Ms. Lara Maroof, while Mr. Quinn Hawkins appeared for the Crown.
The appeal had been heard on 10 March and 23 April 2026.
After considering all of the grounds, the Court concluded that the combined effect of the late hearsay application, the disclosure complaint, the admission of the WhatsApp voice note and the jury directions did not deprive Dean of a fair trial or render his conviction unsafe.
The Court stated that the grounds of appeal had no merit.
The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the trial court was affirmed.
TWO MURDERS. TWO CONVICTIONS. TWO VERY DIFFERENT APPEALS.
The legal history surrounding Kendell Dean now contains two murder convictions arising from separate incidents and two very different appellate outcomes.
In the first case, the murder of Judah Gail in August 2018 led to a jury conviction and a 30-year minimum tariff. But in 2021, the Court of Appeal allowed Dean’s appeal and quashed that conviction.
In the second case, Joshua Swann was killed on 8 August 2021.
Dean was subsequently convicted by a jury in April 2024 and sentenced to life imprisonment with eligibility for consideration of release on licence after 30 years, subject to the credit for time spent on remand.
This time, however, the appellate court found that the evidential and procedural complaints did not make the conviction unsafe.
The contrast is important.
The first appeal succeeded because the Court of Appeal found sufficient problems with the first trial to quash the conviction.
The second appeal failed because, after examining each of the five grounds, the appellate judges concluded that the trial had been conducted fairly and that the jury had been properly entitled to consider the evidence against Dean.
WHAT THE RECORD ACTUALLY ESTABLISHES
It is therefore inaccurate to simply say that Dean “won one appeal and lost another” without explaining why.
The first appeal concerned the conviction arising from Judah Gail’s 2018 murder, and the Court of Appeal ultimately quashed that conviction. The second appeal concerned Joshua Swann’s 2021 murder, and the Court of Appeal has now upheld that conviction.
The court record also establishes that the second prosecution was supported by a considerably broader evidential picture, including the evidence of Denesia Gray, Trevondre Basden, the recorded evidence of Karo Outten, electronic evidence, the WhatsApp voice note and Dean’s own police interview.
The Court of Appeal has now ruled that the combined impact of the issues raised by Dean did not amount to a miscarriage of justice.
DEAN REMAINS IN PRISON
For now, the legal position is settled.
Kendell Dean remains convicted of the murder of Joshua Swann.
His life sentence remains in force, with eligibility for consideration of release on licence after 30 years, and the court has confirmed credit for the two years, nine months and 28 days he spent on remand before sentence.
The judgment does not say that Dean can never leave prison under any circumstances. Rather, it confirms the life sentence and the applicable 30-year period before eligibility for consideration of release on licence.
What is different from 2021 is that this time the Court of Appeal has examined the grounds advanced by Dean and has found them insufficient to disturb the conviction.
The first appeal changed his legal position.
The second appeal has not.
