Judge to decide how much to fine man for Ak-47 and ammo

Sean George Whitehead will have to pay a significant fine for having an AK-47 and several rounds of ammunition over 11 years ago.

That was made clear by Justice Randall Worrell when Whitehead reappeared in the No.2 Supreme Court on Friday morning for sentencing.

However, Justice Worrell said he needed additional information about the convicted man’s financial situation before imposing the fine.

Whitehead, of Long Beach Estate, Christ Church, had previously pleaded guilty to having possession of the unlicensed assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition on March 10, 2011.

He also pleaded guilty to having 3.44 kilogrammes of cannabis and equipment fit and intended for use in connection with the preparation for the misuse of cannabis on the same date.

In their written submissions, Whitehead’s lawyer Dr Lenda Blackman and prosecutor Senior State Counsel Neville Watson agreed that a non-custodial sentence was suitable.

But while Dr Blackman suggested a fine of $25 000 for the firearm and $10 000 for the ammunition, Watson asked the court to impose a $50 000 fine on Whitehead for having the gun and a further $24 000 for the ammunition.

Justice Worrell pointed out that the AK-47 found in Whitehead’s possession was “not the conventional firearm”.

He also told defence counsel that persons with “lesser firearms” had been fined $25 000.

The judge agreed that the mitigating factors far outweighed the aggravating factors.

He said Whitehead had no previous convictions, the firearm and ammunition had never been used, and there was no intent by Whitehead to use the firearm.

Justice Worrell said it was also extremely important that both the AK-47 and ammunition were off the streets.

However, he said he was minded to impose a significant forthwith fine on Whitehead.

Although Dr Blackman told the court that Whitehead’s mother was prepared to assist him in paying any fine, Justice Worrell said that would have to be documented.

He also noted that if both the defence and prosecution agreed on a non-custodial sentence, it made no sense for him to impose a fine that Whitehead could not pay, which would result in him being incarcerated.

“If the court would allow what both counsel are saying, in that he shouldn’t have a custodial sentence but a fine, I still have to have something before me because often persons say that they can pay fines but when we put the fine we hear three years after that they didn’t pay the fine,” Justice Worrell said.

“We have to ensure that the public has confidence that if you are fined, you will pay or you will go to jail. But I still need the means before I say that this amount is reasonable because the court also has to deal with the concept of reason. If a man only has the means of $50 000, how can the court then say he has sufficient means to pay a $100 000 fine?”

Justice Worrell adjourned sentencing until next Wednesday when Whitehead’s mother is expected to be present to tell the court if she will assist her son in paying the fine, and for the court to be brought up to date with the convict’s finances.