‘Low-risk’ Arthur must pay for bullets

The case against the younger brother of the late Prime Minister Professor Owen Arthur was not one that warranted a custodial sentence.

The court instead ordered Richard Delisle Arthur of Maynards, St Peter, to pay a $30 000 fine for having 102 bullets on January 31, 2012.

Justice Randall Worrell imposed the fine today in the No. 2 Supreme Court where he noted the “exemplary” pre-sentencing report which assessed Arthur as a low-risk offender who had no criminogenic needs. Arthur expressed regret for the matter and indicated that he did not view it as a malicious act as he had a licence to carry a firearm and ammunition.

He said the matter was emotionally traumatic especially when he internalized the possible outcome and asked the court for leniency.

Both counsel for the defence and the prosecution agreed that the matter did not reach the threshold for a custodial sentence given the circumstances and the pre-sentencing report. The court agreed with this and looked at his clean record, age and medical report.

The report noted his medical conditions of hypertension and heart disease and medication used. A report by a registered clinical psychologist suggested that Arthur not be subjected to a second period of incarceration to avoid further harm to his mental state and suggested an alternative to a custodial sentence would be in his best interest medically.

Justice Worrell also looked at Arthur’s background and the testimonies of character witnesses who described him as an upstanding member of the community.

The sole aggravating feature was the amount of ammunition indicated in the charge. However, it was determined that the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating ones.

“Mr Arthur has served in a shooting capacity for the country and I think that may have been the reason for him having the ammunition but clearly it is a strict liability offence, so being a strict liability offence, either one has a licence for these things or one doesn’t have. It doesn’t seem to be any malicious act, it doesn’t seem like Mr Arthur was bent on any criminality,” the judge said.

The court considered a starting fine of $60 000 before applying a 50% reduction for the fact that the mitigating factors clearly outweighed the aggravating features. (TS)