BASSETERRE, St. Kitts - JAMES HAM, who was convicted of rape and sentenced to serve 15 years in prison, had his appeal case dismissed today (Feb. 10).
Ham’s appeal - which was against his sentence - was dismissed by the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court of Appeal which is sitting at the Basseterre High Court this week (Feb. 10-14).
He was convicted of forcing himself into a woman's home and raping her at knife point while her 7-year-old son was in the house.
The convict originally appealed against both conviction and sentence but withdrew the former, stating that he had no legal representation and did not view himself competent enough to argue that matter.
Despite numerous attempts by the Justices of Appeal, headed by Chief Justice Janice Pereira, to offer Ham the opportunity to have the matter adjourned to the next sitting of the Appeal Court while he seeks legal representation, he did not make good of the offer.
Ham stressed that he was not financially equipped to seek representation and when asked about assistance from family members, he replied that they reside overseas.
He was, however, given time to consider his options to either have the matter adjourned, giving him time to seek counsel, or have the appeal against conviction withdrawn and proceed unrepresented with the appeal against sentence.
Ham chose that latter and argued his case.
He sought to convince the court that his 15-year sentence which was handed to him by Her Ladyship Lanthea Leigertwood-Octave on April 29, 2010 was excessive given the fact that it was his "first felony conviction and first appearance at the High Court".
He argued that although at the time of sentencing, he had five previous convictions, they were all non-violent crimes.
Ham stated that his sentence was severe, especially when compared to other matters of the same crime.
Citing a rape case that was tried at the Nevis High Court, he argued that the convict was sentenced to "a mere 3 years".
He further cited and stressed upon a rape matter that was heard at the last sitting of the Appeal Court in St. Kitts where the appellant's sentence was reduced from 10 years to six years.
Giving details of Kevin Jones' case, Ham said he [Jones] raped a woman in a bus while she had a four-month-old baby with her. He went on to say that there were complaints that the baby's head was being hit against the bus while Jones committed the act.
He asked the Court, in light of his cited cases, to reduce his sentence to either six or eight years.
Comparing the two cases, Chief Justice Pereira said the baby cannot be compared to the trauma the seven-year-old son of his victim went through on the night of the incident. She also stated that no weapon were used.
Speaking on Ham's case, Chief Justice Pereira said the victim was in her home, "her palace where she ought to have been safe from the world".
She said a child that age would be able to assess what was going on and would have the memory of that night etched into his mind; and would probably remember it for the rest of his life. She said Ham also had a knife held to the victim's throat.
"The jury found you guilty of forcing your way into her home using a knife at her throat. She is begging and pleading with you for her life and her son's. Her son comes in wanting to know who is this person and why he has a knife, but it continues into another room. Her son comes in again.
"Fortunately, she was speaking to someone on the telephone and the person heard her scream and raised an alarm. She even told you someone was listening but that did not stop you."
Chief Justice explained that the aggravating circumstances taken into consideration was so overwhelming that it neutralised whatever mitigating circumstances there were because of the level of violence used.
Ham was told he had no empathy for the victim who screamed, begged and pleaded; and what made matters worse is the fact that it was done in the presence of a child.
"This is heinous on any level. One could only imagine the memories of her son to have seen that type of violence on his mother. And then to make the remarks you made...that adds insult to injury. This was not a date, this was sheer violence," the Chief Justice expressed.
She said there was nothing to show that the trial judge made and error in the evaluation of the case or the manner in which he was sentenced.
Ham made several attempts at asking for leniency but was eventually told by the Chief Justice that "the Court does not operate on sympathy, but on principle".
The appeal was dismissed and the 15-year sentence upheld.
"There is no reason for this Court to disturb the sentence imposed by the learned trial judge," she held.
