By James Milnes Gaskell
In the 1970’s in England, a Judge (Judge ‘A’) sentenced a convicted rapist not to prison but to probation. The national newspapers pounced on it. “Judge soft on rapist”, “Judge should be fired”, “Our women must be protected” and other more striking headlines were on display. The Lord Chancellor, who appoints judges, sent for Judge ‘A’. It was a private interview. By chance, I knew Judge ‘A’ and also Judge ‘B’. Both of them worked in the same Courts and were friends of my parents. Judge ‘B’ told me that he had seen the papers for this case and had mentally marked the rapist for a sentence of three years imprisonment. It was, I think, generally accepted by those who knew and those who didn’t know that Judge ‘A’ had got it wrong.
The Press, as public watchdog, made their comments as was their duty to do. I consider it to be my duty as a regular commentator in the St. Kitts-Nevis Press to comment upon the sentence imposed upon Mr. John Andrews for possession of an illegal firearm.
I mean no disrespect to the learned Magistrate, but I submit that the sentence of three years imprisonment in this particular case was inappropriate. Just as Judge ‘A’ was wrong in placing a rapist on probation, so in my humble assessment of this case was our Magistrate in her sentencing. I know that the sentence is being appealed and that Judges are trained to take note of the facts and evidence put before them in their Court. Should any of the Judges read this article, I know that he or she would disregard it.
Some of the comments posted on the internet display a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the case. The sole purpose of this article is to attempt to combat that ignorance. It is not to advise the Appeal Court what to do. That is not the function of the Press anymore than it is that of the Executive Branch of Government.
I first met John Andrews about eight years ago when he came to a Montpelier Hotel Beach BBQ. I gained the impression that he was thinking of retiring to Nevis, but my main memory of that conversation is of his enthusiasm for the prisoner rehabilitation work that he was doing in Miami and the success of the project and how he thought that a similar job could be done here, and that he would like to help bring it about.
Some foreign investors come to stay, retire or live here and keep to themselves. They may become involved in our community to a greater or lesser degree. John Andrews is one who became involved in a beneficial way as soon as he could. He worked with senior police officers in Nevis, and I would be surprised if those same officers are not dismayed to find that such a benefactor of Nevis has been jailed. There is in most jurisdictions a high rate of repeat offenders. Apparently John Andrews’ Miami project effected a considerable reduction. If you can get criminals to ‘go straight’ then by definition you are cutting crime. No wonder the hardworking officers heading Nevis’ Police Division were keen to engage with a plan to reduce the number of criminals they might have to contend with and the individual who would help to bring to reality this happy state of affairs.
How was it that Mr. Andrews finds himself convicted of possession of an illegal firearm?
There is no dispute that he was in possession of a firearm for which he did not hold a licence. This is a statutory offence to which, quite properly, he pleaded guilty. Sentence is, within prescribed limits, at the discretion of the Court. To exercise that discretion the Court considers the background to and the facts of the case as well as the character and record of the defendant.
As I understand it, Mr. Andrews and his wife bought their property at Hamilton fairly recently, and on that property Mr. Andrews found an old .22 rifle. He has personally handled guns from a very early age and is a Viet Nam War veteran. He thought that if he could restore this rifle to working condition he could use it to shoot the monkeys which infest his property. He sent away for the necessary spare part. Later this arrived at the Airport. Customs asked what it was. He told them. No deception. The next thing that happened was the arrival of the police at his property apparently to search for guns and drugs. The rifle was handed over. There were no drugs. He and his wife were arrested and charged. The charges against her were later dropped.
Facts before the Court were that John Andrews was in a voluntary way working with senior police officers in Nevis as already described, that he held a current licence for possession of a .38 pistol (handgun), that he found the rifle on his property, that he was aged 64 and of exemplary character. Following on from the above, it has to be clear that he did not acquire the .22 rifle for nefarious purposes. It would have been laughable to suggest that he would put on a balaclava and set out with this rifle on an armed raid. It would have been ludicrous to suggest that this rifle gave him the ‘street cred’ to join one of the gangs of youths now doing damage in this country. Since he held a licence for a .38 firearm, he was in the eyes of the authorities a fit and proper person to possess a firearm. A licence is specific to a particular gun or pistol. His licence did not cover the .22 rifle, only the .38 pistol. It is speculation, but I suggest that if he had done as he should have, and had handed in the .22 rifle to the police upon discovery and then applied for a licence, it might well have been granted.
Why did he not take this step? I cannot say, but in America where he comes from there is a far more lax attitude towards purchase and possession of firearms. Was he naïve, ignorant of the strictures of our law, idle? I expect so, but what he was not, it is quite clear, and should have been to the Court, is that he was not a man who found himself convicted of an offence through criminal intent. It was therefore a technical offence, although one properly made out, and to which he pleaded guilty.
I say that the Court in passing sentence of three years imprisonment on each of two charges (to run concurrently) did not distinguish between a technical offence and the same offence involving a person who acquires and possesses a weapon for criminal purposes. It now means that, according to this Court’s sentencing, should you be a day late in payment for your existing firearms licence, and your licence is not therefore renewed, you are guilty of this offence and could also be sent to prison. Let us say that you had instructed your bank to make annual payments for your licence renewal. One year they forget. Sorry, go to prison for three years.
Ignorance of the law is no defence! But we are not discussing the commission of the offence, but the sentence. Does our community really want a situation to exist in which anyone could in certain circumstances, but without criminal intent be sent to prison? It is legitimate in some situations for a Court to wish to send a signal to other potential criminals by means of a particular sentence. But that cannot be the case here. You do not transmit a message to any young hoodlum by locking up a harmless 64-year-old. And if that is what you think you are doing, it is grossly and unacceptably unfair to that defendant and a stain on our society. If this had happened to a 64-year-old Nevisian, well-respected and a credit to the community, we would be marching. Consequences flow from all actions! I would imagine that the US State Department may revise its view of St. Kitts-Nevis. We may no longer be safe to visit. This has to damage tourism investing and our economy. Moreover, Mr. Andrews’ wife, who has her own travel public relations company, has for the last several years held the contract to encourage more tourists to come to Nevis. How can she maintain her enthusiasm for this task?
The only bullet discharged from this particular weapon has gone straight through our community’s foot.
Syndicated Commentary
