The Queen v James Ricardo Alexander Fields
| Jurisdiction | Barbados |
| Judge | Carlisle Greaves J |
| Judgment Date | 03 July 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | BB 2020 HC 28 |
| Date | 03 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | Indictment No. 90/2012 |
| Court | High Court (Barbados) |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
HIGH COURT
CRIMINAL DIVISION
The Honourable Carlisle Greaves, Judge of the High Court
Indictment No. 90/2012
Mr. Neville Watson, Attorney-at-Law for the Prosecution
Ms. Verla DePieza, Attorney-at-Law for the Accused
Conviction for manslaughter — appropriate starting point — 22 years — use of a firearm and non recovery of the firearm, substantial aggravating factors — enforcement of drugs or gang business, substantial aggravating factors — provocation a mitigating factor.
On the 3 rd September, 2012 the Accused was indicted for the murder of Michael Dear on 18 th February 2010. Pursuant to section 6A of The Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2018, he was subsequently assessed and found to be fit for trial.
Trial commenced on the 18 th February, 2020 and on 26th February, 2020 a jury by unanimous verdict found him not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.
He was remanded in custody pending sentence but his sentencing was delayed by the requirement for a pre-sentencing report, which in this jurisdiction requires approximately 8 weeks, the world wide shut down since March by reason of the Covid19, the unavailability of certain character witnesses and other intervening factors.
On the 18 th February 2010 the defendant then 18 years old was engaged in the sale of drugs, cocaine rocks, under a hut in his Storey Gap, Codrington Hill, St Michael, neighbourhood.
He sold the deceased Mr Dear two rocks but Mr. Dear was dissatisfied with the sale and demanded the return of his money. A scuffle ensued between the two with Mr Dear barging the accused who was able to push him to the ground.
Mr Dear recovered and rushed at the accused with his fist whereupon the accused drew his firearm, shot Mr Dear dead and fled. He was not seen again until the police arrested him several months later in the parish of St Thomas. Upon his arrest the accused gave the police an elegantly self written statement.
The entire incident was witnessed by a witness who testified against the accused.
The accused has called one character witness who was familiar with him since he was at a youthful age and who spoke well of him and expressed shock at his involvement in this incident. He also had the benefit of a pre-sentencing report, which this court has considered.
The prosecution submits, given the circumstances of this case, only a custodial sentence is appropriate. Pierre Lorde v The Queen Cr App No.11 of 2003 was relied upon.
He submitted a starting point of 25 years, after taking into account the aggravating and mitigating circumstances relevant to the nature of the offence. Pierre Lorde; Tereeth Persaud v The Queen, [2018] CCJ 10. He cited Pierre Lord for the principle that “ where in a contested trial where death was caused by a firearm and the facts are on the border line of murder with no mitigating features, the range of sentence should be 25 years and upwards, including in a proper case, life imprisonment”.
The aggravating factors he identified included, the use of a firearm to commit the offence, the concealment of the firearm thereafter, the sale of drugs at the time, the discharge of the firearm in public, the putting of another citizen at risk thereby, the accused's flight thereafter and long avoidance of apprehension. He submitted there are no mitigating factors and thus the aggravating factors outweigh any mitigating factors.
He further submitted other aggravating factors include, a previous conviction and his high risk of re-offending, whilst further mitigating factors include, his young age of 18 and immaturity at the time and his subsequent remorse for the death. Taking into account, the 2138 days or approximately 5 years 9 months spent in custody at 15 th May 2020, Romeo Hall v The Queen [2011] CCJ 6, he submits the accused should now be sentenced to 19 years 3 months imprisonment.
Counsel for the accused submitted that the starting point should be at the lower end of the band established in Shawn Pinder v The Queen [2016] CCJ 13 (AJ) which held that, “in a contested trial where death was caused by a firearm and the facts are grave but mitigating factors such as provocation exist, the range in sentencing should be 16 to 20 years”.
She identified the aggravating factors as including, the use of the firearm, Bend and Murray v The Queen Crim App 19 and 20 of 2001, where use of a firearm was particularly considered an aggravating factor but she cautioned it should not be double counted. Also submitted as an aggravating factor was the “ drug deal gone sour”. See Maxo Tido [2011] UKPC 16, Trimmingham v. The Queen [2009] UKPC 25 and Ernest Lockhart v. The Queen [2011] UKPC 33.
As for the mitigating factors she submitted, only one shot was fired, no evidence of premeditation, the young age of the accused at the time, the seniority of the deceased who charged at him and lost of his parents at an early age by way of the neglect of his father and the death of his mother.
In addition she cited his expressed remorse, that he was of no fixed place of abode but now owns his own home, has since the event embarked on some studies at the PomMarine, entrepreneurship through tattooing and sales, mentored children in school during the latter two years he has been on bail and now participates in a stable relationship.
She cited Andrew Lovell v R [2016] CCJ6 (AJ) where a sentence of 22 years was confirmed after the appellant had as part of a group burgled a guest house and shot a visitor in the back; submitted to be a worse case than the instant; Teerath Persaud, a case she submitted to be of unusual cruelty, 14 years substituted by the CCJ; Bend and Murray described by the CA as an extremely appalling case, 14 years.
She submitted, given a starting point of 16 years, the aggravating and mitigating factors, less the remand time she calculated at 7 years, a further sentence of 5 years imprisonment would not be unreasonable in the circumstances.
Section 6 of the Offences Against the Person Act, Cap. 141, provides that:
… a person convicted for manslaughter is liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Section 35 of The Penal Reform Act. Cap. 139 provides that:
… where a person is convicted of an offence punishable with a custodial sentence…the court shall not past a custodial sentence on the offender unless it is of the opinion …that the offence was so serious that only such a sentence can be justified for the offence or where the offence is a violent…offence, that only such a sentence would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from the offender.
For the reasons stated below, I find this to be a...
To continue reading
Request your trial