Defence lawyer says whole life sentence not appropriate for killer

Despite a state prosecutor labelling Cheriss Ricardo Ince an evil and calculated murderer, his defence lawyer said on Tuesday that he did not fall into the category of offenders who should be given a whole life sentence.

Safiya Moore took that position as she made sentencing submissions on behalf of the Nursery #2, Four Roads, St Philip resident who killed Marcelle Smith between October 12 and 25, 2015.

Smith’s decomposing body was discovered in a ravine two weeks after she went missing from her #2 Congo Road, St Philip residence on October 12, 2015.

Moore’s submissions before Justice Randall Worrell came in response to submissions made by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Alliston Seale who said Ince should be put away for the rest of his natural life to protect society because he was “pure evil”.

“He is a cool and calculated and evil murderer, and it is my submission that he is one candidate fit to spend his natural life in prison,” Seale had said of Moore’s client.

But the defence attorney told the No. 2 Supreme Court that with a whole life sentence, there was no possibility of rehabilitation for an offender as this person would always be considered a danger to society.

She explained that such a conclusion could only be reached on medical evidence that there was “nothing that can treat to these issues”. However, Moore argued, that was not stated in Ince’s pre-sentencing, psychological or psychiatric reports.

“They do raise concerns but they speak to treatment that could assist with those concerns,” she added.

Moore also pointed out that the threshold for a whole life sentence was “exceptionally high”, which Ince had not reached, especially when his case was compared to those of Shawn Leo Phillips and Lawrence Anderson Mullin who were both given whole life sentences recently for separate murders.

The lawyer argued that one of the submissions for the whole life sentence put forward by the prosecution was the fact that Ince was on bail for murder when he took Smith’s life.

Moore said while that fact could not be disputed, the court can consider it as an aggravating factor, “but it cannot be held to the same standard as a person who had been convicted of murder”.

“So he does not fall into the category of [Lawrence] Anderson Mullin, who had been previously convicted for a similar offence and was back before the court [for another murder] . . . .

“I want to be clear in drawing that distinction. While the [fact the] offence was committed while on bail can be seen as an aggravating factor towards him, it cannot rise to the level of aggravating as if he had been convicted of murder . . . ,” said the attorney.

“This case, I can say, is very similar to cases where persons have had determinate sentences imposed.”

She added that her challenge with the concept of life imprisonment, with a minimum term to be spent behind bars before being eligible to be considered for release, was the absence of legislation on the matter.

“The problem is we do not have any legislation in place that references any parole board or any Parole Act . . . so we are implementing sentences and there is nobody that exists that is reviewing these sentences . . . ,” Moore said.

“I am submitting that this is a matter where a determinate sentence would make the most sense. Determinate sentences have been imposed before in serious offences where the conviction is that [for] murder.

“I am further submitting that life imprisonment, even with a minimum term, is not necessary in this matter. A determinate sentence that says this is the amount of time that you are to spend in prison is exceptionally more appropriate where there is no parole board that exists.

“The range that I would propose [is] the 30-40 year category which reflects the types of sentencing that these courts have been proposing in relation to the offences of murder.

“I am submitting that there is nothing about this matter that merits it going outside that 30 to 40 [range]. I submit to this court that a whole life sentence is wholly inappropriate . . . . I submit this is not a matter that falls into the category that would merit a sentence of life imprisonment, even with a minimum term,” Moore added.

Ince returns before Justice Worrell on July 13 for sentencing.