Devon Dick

In two days time, the nation's justice system will be examined at a National Summit and the chairman of the Jamaica Justice Reform Task Force, Professor Barry Chevannes, has already stated that coming out of the islandwide consultations, the issue of sentencing guidelines was highlighted.

In addition, Gladstone Wilson, attorney for a man who was convicted of two counts of carnal abuse, has made a comment on sentencing in an article 'Basic principles in court sentencing' (April 24) which was a defence of the learned trial judge who handed down a suspended sentence. Wilson's letter was a response to my article 'Child abuse and outrageous sentencing' (April 10) which he said was 'uninformed and unhelpful'. In that article, I questioned how a man found guilty of two counts of carnally abusing a 13-year-old could get a suspended sentence. But since the learned attorney was not convinced by my arguments, he might be impressed by what Justice Hugh Small, Q.C., said on TVJ's 'All Angles'.

Justice Small mentioned a case named Millberry in which the court, including a female judge, laid down some general principles. The general guidelines as to sentencing for rape were given in the case of the R v Roberts and Roberts [1982] 4 Cr App R (S) 8. Lord Lane, British Chief Justice, presided. In giving the judgement of the court, he stated: "Rape is always a serious crime.

Why custodial sentence

Other than in wholly exceptional circumstances, it calls for an immediate custodial sentence." A custodial sentence is necessary for a variety of reasons,

To mark the gravity of the offence.

To emphasise public disapproval.

To serve as a warning to others.

To punish the offender.

To protect women.

Lord Lane indicated that: "For rape committed by an adult without any aggravating or mitigating features, a figure of five years should be takenas the starting point in a contested case." That is a good starting point.

The defence lawyer has not mention any exceptional circumstance except to say that The Observer report contained inaccuracies without even mentioning one inaccuracy. He also said he disagreed with the verdict of the jury but did not say why.

The learned attorney also said that if I commit a crime then my beneficial service to Jamaica should be taken into consideration. I disagree. Social inquiry which is not subjected to cross-examination should not be admissible for the purposes of sentencing. In addition, social inquiries are biased towards persons who are well connected, rich, powerful and influential. Therefore, this is not justice and distorts the maxim of being equal before the law. In fact, a person of good character who commits a heinous crime should get a more severe punishment than a vagabond who has committed a similar crime under similar circumstances. The person who knows better should do better.

Wilson also challenges my assertion that the judgement shows that as a country we are not serious about paedophiles. He asked, "How does this one example produce such a sweeping generality?" Let me remind the attorney that last year a pastor in St. Catherine who pleaded guilty, unlike your client, to counts of sexual assault of children of state also got a suspended sentence. I suspect that, factored into his sentencing, was his beneficial service to Jamaica and to the wards of the state.

I rest my case!