BASSETERRE, St. Kitts - "YOU cannot continue simply taking up other people's property and entering into other person's homes. There must be respect and rules in every society that we all have to live by."
So said Chief Justice Janice Pereira who yesterday (Jun. 11) gave Clive Grant a few words of advice before dismissing the appeal for his burglary conviction and eight-year sentence.
Grant made an attempt to argue his appeal, claiming that he was not the one who broke into the home of Trevor ‘Jamsta’ Woodley and stole a Sony Ericsson cellular phone on January 21, 2011.
When time came to argue his sentence appeal, Grant said he "can't come up with anything", but added the eight-year sentence was too high.
Chief Justice Pereira asked the convict what would be deemed an appropriate sentence for someone who goes into another's home and takes their belongings.
In response, Grant said he did not know but added that his sentence could have been four years. He however could not explain why, stating "I can't come up with any right now" when asked to give an explanation.
The Chief Justice told Grant that a trial judge considers a number of factors, including criminal records, when passing sentence and noted that he had a number of previous convictions for similar offences. She then proceeded to cite the years he had been convicted for those offences.
She explained that the trial judge also takes into consideration whether or not the convicted person appears to be improving himself or herself, trying to stay away from criminal activities etc.
"When those sort of things happen, then the Court has to look to see what really is the appropriate sentence and what should protect society from a person who doesn't appear to be improving no matter what chances are given with regards to these brush-ins with the criminal justice system. Has he learnt anything from them, has he taken away any positive lessons," she told Grant.
She also told him that he does not seem to be a remorseful person.
"I wouldn't say I'm not a remorseful person. I am a remorseful person! I does think about certain things like the past...I does think about the past...," he stated.
Pereira however told Grant that he should think about his future and let go of the past, because there is nothing more he could do about it, adding that persons could always do something about their future.
He was asked his age and then reminded that he had been in the criminal justice system since 1990.
The 40-year-old Grant stated that he was indeed thinking about his future but needed a chance.
"You can have a chance, but you have to be ready and willing to take advantage of it. You cannot continue simply taking up other people's property and entering into other person's homes. There must be respect and rules in every society that we all have to live by.
"And think about how you would feel if somebody goes and take up your property. You would feel violated if someone went into your home and go and take up your things. Those are the things that laws are made to protect against," she advised Grant.
She told him that given his criminal record, there was nothing she could have seen that showed the trial judge was wrong in giving him the eight-year sentence.
"He (trial judge) stated in his sentencing that you seem not to have any use for people's property other than to take it up and do what you will with it. He said that you were destructive and dangerous," she said.
Another Justice of Appeal told Grant that, given his age and maturity, he ought to have at least turned from his life of crime long ago. She said even if people commit offences when they are young, "by a certain age you tend to see them rehabilitated and moved away from crime".
He was told that at his age, still having to be before the Court with an offence of that nature and given his past record, there was nothing that could be found to show that the trial judge was inappropriate in giving him eight years.
Grant's appeal against both conviction and sentence were dismissed.
It was brought to the Court's attention that Grant was sentenced to an additional three years and four months after he had pleaded guilty to being found with housebreaking implements in relation to the same offence. His sentence was to run consecutively to the eight years.
The Appeal Court however changed that sentence and it would now run concurrently instead.
