Lawyers on both sides on Wednesday agreed that a non-custodial sentence in the form of a fine could be imposed on a convicted gunman.
Principal State Counsel Krystal Delaney and defense attorney Kendrid Sargeant made the submissions on sentencing before the No. 5 Supreme Court this morning in the case of Jamar Renaldo Sealy.
The 37-year-old had pleaded guilty before Madam Justice Pamela Beckles to having a firearm and one round of ammunition on October 18, 2012.
In his submissions Sargeant explained that his client had been charged with the offence when he was about 27 years old and after that infraction had “walked the straight and narrow” and had not been involved in any way in criminal activity.
“This was a misstep,” he said, adding that the pre-sentencing report on his client showed that he was not one with a “criminal mindset”.
He added: ‘He is not a person who is connected to the block culture. He said he committed the offence when he was “young and foolish”.
The defence attorney also pointed to the findings of the firearms examiner who found that the gun in question was not capable of discharging a round of ammunition because it was missing a component.
“He did not use it to commit any crimes. It was recovered. This is a person who had what we would consider an unguarded moment and made an error.
“I do believe that the now convicted man is a person who can be reformed . . . and that a custodial sentence would not be of benefit to him or his family. I urge the court to consider a non-custodial sentence,” Sargeant said.
Delaney, who is the prosecutor in the matter, agreed with Sargeant’s submissions saying that she believed that a fine would be appropriate in the circumstances if imposed on the first-time offender.
Justice Beckles will sentence Sealy on August 22. However, she made it clear that although the gun was not in working order, it did not mean that it would not cause “fear” in a person.
“If you see these things leave them alone. What did you take it up for? It doesn’t make sense,” she said. She suggested that while persons make mistakes, the convicted man could not get “a slap on the wrist” for a firearm and ammunition.
