BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – EIGHTEEN-YEAR-OLD Shakeem ‘Hotness’ Walters yesterday afternoon (Jun. 20) left the Basseterre High Court in tears after his attacker, 21-year-old Nyon Dasent, was sentenced to 10 years for attempted murder.
He was sentenced by Justice Errol Thomas.
The original sentence was 15 years but Dasent will only serve 10 years due to the time he spend in remand.
Walters has been left blind and paralysed from the waist down following the January 2012 shooting and is wheelchair bound.
Reportedly, shortly after midnight on Friday, January 20, 2012, Dasent shot Walters in Park Street, Basseterre in the vicinity of National Housing Corporation (NHC).
Walters, who was 16 years old at the time, was found lying on Park Street in a pool of blood with gunshot wounds to the head and chest.
Yesterday, Walters became quite emotional and had to be comforted by his accompanied uniformed caregiver during the revisiting of the facts which highlighted that he, the victim, “cannot walk and cannot see” as a result of the attempted killing.
When asked by Justice Thomas if he had anything to say, an expressionless Dasent expressed: “I have done something wrong and I know I deserve punishment,” while asking the Court to “have some leniency and mercy”.
Dasent’s legal representative, Denzil Hinds, pointed out that the maximum sentence for attempted murder was 25 years, but he urged the Court not to use that length of time “as a starting point” in his client’s case.
He asked the Court to consider a sentence between 10 and 15 years, considering the mitigating factor, pointing out that had Dasent “not cooperated with the police, we would be looking at a severe sentence”.
He also pointed to the fact that his client had “accepted full responsibility for his actions” and had been cooperative during the trial. Additionally, he highlighted that Dasent did sign a written confession and had pleaded guilty at his arraignment.
Hinds reflected that with the initial confession and guilty plea, his client had not wasted the Court’s time and had saved human resources with respect to the police investigation.
Hinds indicated that Dasent’s sister and mother asked him personally to apologise to Walters and his family before the Court.
Despite instances of slight hiccups during the early stage of his presentation, Hinds had managed to put a strong argument before the Court which won the commendation of Justice Thomas, who commented... “Well done counsel.”
Hinds made mention of Dasent’s academic background as a past student of Tucker-Clarke Primary and having left the Basseterre High School in 4G5 and taking up employment at four different places, including a construction business.
He claimed that his client had “some interest in being a productive member of society”, stating that he is “prime candidate for rehabilitation”.
Using the Social Enquiry Report, Hinds shared comments by Dasent’s wheelchair confined mother, who revealed that following the amputation of her legs in 2006 and 2011 respectively, her son “always assisted” her at home and with the picking up of her medication.
In the report also, Dasent’s mother said he was “a very helpful son” and was “never a disrespectful boy”.
Hinds, during his presentation, said his client, in 2011 had seen his biological father for the first time in his life.
From the Social Enquiry Report, Justice Thomas highlighted that despite the absence of his father in his life growing up, Dasent had a mother “who tried her best” and that he “must be held responsible for his actions”.
That report also disclosed that Dasent had “potential” to be productive. And peer pressure, his disinterest in his academics causing him to be placed in the lower stream and the inability of his mother “to keep him on a tight leash” were read before the Court.
Justice Thomas shared comments from Dasent, which revealed admittance to while growing up he had lived an “unwise” life and “didn’t have a mind of my own”. It was also pointed out that he would watch people and judge them and “automatically hate them”.
It was further shared that while incarcerated, the “Father had showed him “signs” that he “was blind to”.
Justice Thomas pointed out that the absence of parents and “dysfunctional homes” is a “recurring factor” for persons who appear before the Court as being the cause for young males and females to have “leeway”.
He went on to mention the inevitable occurrence of such, stating that the Court “can’t do much” about such situations, whilst adding that because one does not have “strict parents, it is not a reason to commit crime”.
In his rebuttal of Hinds’ argument, Justice Thomas said the Court had to consider the circumstances of the incident, pointing to areas including the “unprovoked” nature of the crime and “manner of execution” which involved the shooting in the head and chest region.
Thomas lashed out at the spate of gun-related violence and influx of weapons in the Federation.
He said the weapons are being used by individuals who shoot people at will, which is “not doing the country good”.
.jpg)
