BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – HAVING being incarcerated since February 2, 2011 and declaring that he has an ailing mother, a 27-year-old Lower Cayon resident yesterday (Jun. 10) asked the Justices of Appeal for leniency and was granted his request.
At the Basseterre High Court, where the Court of Appeal is currently sitting, convicted rapist David Morton was given a three-year reduced sentence.
Morton was convicted in March 2011 for the rape of a 16-year-old in June 2009. He was originally prepared to appeal both the conviction and sentence, but told the Court yesterday that he would only be arguing against his 18-year sentence.
He simply requested a shortened sentence, stating that he had been in prison for some time and that his mother had fallen ill and he wanted to be able to assist her.
The young man was told that the Court does not deal with leniency and he had to show that the trial judge had erred somewhere in handing down the sentence.
The Justices of Appeal reviewed the sentencing and stated that the matters in mitigation grossly outweighed the aggravating factors.
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Travers Sinanan argued that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the weapon used, the threats made against the victim, the injuries sustained and the fact that the act was premeditated, among the other aggravating circumstances, the sentence given was appropriate.
"Whatever good there is, is washed away by the tsunami of aggravating circumstances,” the DPP said..
When asked what level of sentence escalation would he give, considering the benchmark sentence of 10 years, the DPP told the Justices of Appeal that he would given Morton an additional five years, considering the aggravating circumstances.
He also said that considering further aggravating circumstances, he would have made it higher.
In his ruling, one of the Justices of Appeal stated that Morton did not cite in particular any factor that rendered the trial judge was incorrect in passing sentence.
"Although given his unrepresented circumstance, one might understand why he might not have been able to do that," the Justice said.
He continued: "From the response of the learned Director of Public Prosecutions, it would appear that a sentence of 15 years would be consistent with the submissions that he has made of the benchmark of 10 (years) and the aggravating factors adding five years, and the Court in fact is in agreement with that an as appropriate sentence for the appellant in this case," he ruled.
The appeal against sentence was allowed.
The 18-year sentence was quashed and a sentence of 15 years was imposed, with time spent on remand to be considered.
