Court reduces fine and gives curfew breaker more time to pay

A $7 000 fine imposed on COVID-19 law breaker Damien Decorey Walters back in April was slashed by more than half today following an appeal through his attorneys, Queen’s Counsel Michael Lashley and Asante Brathwaite.

In fact, the Court of Appeal ruled that the fine was “a bit excessive”, given that Walters was unemployed at the time of his hearing and remained in the same position, according to his lawyers.

Back in April, the 33-year-old resident of London Bourne Towers, Bay Street, St Michael was given 20 weeks in which to pay the fine or spend six months in prison.

The amount was the highest imposed on any person pleading guilty to breaching the COVID-19 directives which required that residents remain indoors during the curfew period put in place by the Government to help stem the spread of the highly contagious virus.

Before a three-member panel of appeal judges this morning, Lashley, the appellant’s lead attorney, argued his case on four grounds.

The Queen’s Counsel submitted to Justices Rajendra Narine, Francis Belle and Jefferson Cumberbatch that the sentence was “wrong in principle” because Chief Magistrate Ian Weekes “erred in law” by not enquiring into their client’s “means” before imposing the fine and, as such, the sentence should be “set aside or quashed”.

Lashley further argued that Weekes failed to weigh all the mitigating factors of the offence, as well as that of the offender, against the aggravating factors to reach “a just and fair sentence”.

“The sentence is excessive because he failed to adequately explore other sentencing options under the Penal System Reform Act Cap 139 of the Laws of Barbados,” the lawyer said, adding that the Chief Magistrate took irrelevant factors into account when he addressed his mind to the type of sentence meted out to Walters.

Lashley further contended that his client was unemployed at the time he was sentenced and was still in the same position, with three children to support,  yet he received the same fine as his co-accused who was employed at the time.

Crown Counsel Keith Robertson, representing the Commissioner of Police in the matter, countered that Weekes took Walters’ means into consideration when he informed him that he could return to the court and seek an extension.

“That indicated that the magistrate was looking into whether the appellant could pay the fine in the time given. He did address his mind to it [and] he said he can come back and they will address the situation,” he said.

However, Robertson conceded that the Court of Appeal could lower the amount of the fine and give an extension of time to pay it.

This, he argued, is what the Chief Magistrate had in mind to begin with, and the Crown “would not have any serious [or] stern objection to that”.

“But we do have issues with the quashing of the sentence, simply because COVID-19 is a very serious issue . . . . In our sister island, just yesterday, there was news that their COVID ward in the hospital is full. Just because Barbados has not suffered in the same way does not mean that this is not a very serious issue,” he submitted.

Following the submissions, Justice Narine stated that the panel was of the view that the Chief Magistrate “did not give sufficient consideration or weight” to the fact that the appellant was unemployed at the time but received the same fine as his co-accused.

“We  . . . are of the view that in the circumstances of the appellant, and having regard to the failure of the magistrate, in our view, to sufficiently consider and give weight to the unemployed status of the appellant, we are of the view that the sentence of $7 000 was a bit excessive, having regard to the prevailing economic conditions in the country and the difficulty that may be experienced in attaining employment and the fact that the appellant has certain obligations. He has three children to support.

“We are of the view that in the circumstances, a fine of $3 000 should be substituted. It is, in our view, a figure which sufficiently shows the seriousness with which the court views the offence and the importance of citizens complying with orders which were made for the benefit of the public at large in the circumstances of the COVID situation,” Narine said.

As such, the Court of Appeal judges allowed the appeal and varied the fine to be paid within a six-month period.

“We will also say that in the event that the appellant has difficulty in raising the sum within the six-month period, he is at liberty to apply for an extension of time to fully pay the fine,” Justice Narine added.