Lawyers differ on compensation for injured man

The Crown and the defence have agreed on the principle but not the sum a St Lucy man should pay in compensation to his victim, after being found guilty of maliciously inflicting serious bodily harm.

Attorneys-at-law Chester Sue and Philip Gaskin today submitted in the No. 5 Supreme Court that their client, Fernando Ricardo Blackman, of Durhams Drive, St Lucy, should compensate complainant Terry Greaves between $9,000 and $10,000 and “not exceeding” that sum for his injury on May 23, 2011.

In making his submissions, attorney Sue argued that his client was previously of a good character, having no prior convictions, was facing his first offence.

“Being in this predicament has been particularly excruciating for him… and that in itself has taken a toll on him,” Sue said as he reminded the No. 5 Supreme Court that Blackman had expressed remorse for the offences.

Pointing to the findings of a presentencing report on the convict, Sue further urged the court to “take all the circumstances into consideration and I asking the court to be as lenient as possible”.

He told the court: “His birthday is on December 9 and I am asking the court to give him a fitting birthday gift.

“I urge the court… for compensation… [and that this] does not blemish his good record.”

The defence attorney suggested that Greaves’s leg injury “became worse because of Terry’s own neglect”.

But while Principal Crown Counsel Krystal Delaney agreed that compensation should be imposed on the soon-to-be 40-year-old Blackman, given his previous good character, she disagreed with the amount as well as the submission for his record to remain clean.

“The convicted man should not be responsible for only the break in the leg but for the challenges that follow. Compensation should be in the region of $25,000 and that would be an appropriate sentence,” the prosecutor said, adding that a 12-month prison sentence should be attached if the amount is not paid.

“He went through a trial and was found guilty. His record should reflect that,” the Crown prosecutor added.

The case has been adjourned until January 31, 2020.