BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – A young man’s failure to capitalise on past opportunities at reform was a major deciding factor in what his punishment for a house breaking and larceny offence should be.
Vinceroy Chumney was accused of breaking into someone’s home in broad daylight on March 31, 2009 and stealing $5 300 worth of items.
Last week, just as his case was about to begin, Chumney opted to submit a guilty plea and was scheduled to be sentenced on Thursday, May 27.
On the day of sentencing, defence counsel John Cato mitigated that Chumney did not waste the court’s time. He added that his client readily accepted the facts of the incident and would have confessed at an earlier date if he had the benefit of advice from counsel. He also said Chumney regretted his actions.
Cato further mitigated that since Chumney’s incarceration, his mother, Venetta Chumney, has played an instrumental role in “getting him to change”; an effort at which he said she was successful.
Chumney has been on remand at Her Majesty’s Prison for this matter since April 2008 and while there, according to Cato’s explanation, “another matter came up” for which he took responsibility. He was sentenced to serve six months, which expires in a matter of days.
His Lordship Justice Francis Belle was beseeched by Chumney’s mother to give her son a second chance at rehabilitation outside the walls of the prison, and expressed that her son has indicated that he wants to change and live a constructive life.
Venetta Chumney’s testimony lasted but a few minutes before the sobbing mother fainted on the stand. She was assisted by an officer of the court and eventually transported to the Joseph N. France General Hospital via the Emergency Medical Services.
According to Justice Belle, Chumney’s rap sheet spoke volumes and suggests that he seems to specialise in committing larceny offences.
In addition to the two convictions he had for battery in 1999, he was convicted of some three larceny-related offences, one of which resulted in him being sentenced to serve five years at Her Majesty’s Prison and six months each on the other two.
His Lordship explained that while he has taken into account that Chumney did not waste the court’s time and the two years he spend on remanded for this offence, he could not overlook the many squandered chances he was afforded for reform.
Justice Belle said in circumstances like those, where persons have a wanton disregard for the law, the punishment must reflect the seriousness of the crime and the society’s and court’s disapproval.
Chumney was sentenced to five years imprisonment.
