The Acting Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) has asked the High Court to impose a stiff sentence on convicted attorney Ernest Winston Jackman despite submissions by his lawyer for him to be given a suspended sentence and his own plea for leniency.
In May this year a jury found Jackman guilty of stealing $678 414.75 from HEJ Limited between June 23, 2006 and March 5, 2007. The 67-year-old was also convicted of engaging in money laundering by disposing of the sum between June 23, 2006 and October 18, 2011.
Acting DPP Krystal Delaney submitted that a starting sentence, of between eight and nine years should be imposed regarding the theft and ten years for the money laundering conviction. Credit, she said, should be given for the time he has spent in prison which up to July 28 was 96 days.
“There was a significant breach of trust, the custodial threshold has been crossed and a suspended sentence is not appropriate in the circumstances.
“In this case an immediate custodial sentence is not only merited but necessary,” Delaney told the No. 5 Supreme Court on Monday.
Pointing to the aggravating factors of the matter before Madam Justice Pamela Beckles, the prosecutor added that a significant sum of money had been stolen.
“It was stolen from an elderly complainant. By the time he gave evidence in this case he was 85 years old. In his victim impact statement he talks about the fact that this money was his retirement plan and he therefore had to make alternate arrangements for his retirement when it was not forthcoming.
“We all know that the relationship between a client and an attorney is one that is built on trust and in this case there was a breach of that trust when the convicted man chose to use Mr Huggins’ money as his own personal piggy bank.
“He used Mr Huggins’ money as if it were his own. . . .It cannot go to his credit that he was using it for a venture that fell through because he had no right using it in the first place. It is aggravating that he used it for his own business venture.”
The prosecutor added that while the convicted lawyer had repaid a significant portion of the money, that was only done as a result of a previous court judgment.
“A custodial sentence certainly should be imposed. The convicted man is not the first attorney that we have had before the court in recent times with offences of this sort.
“The court needs . . . to send a message that these sorts of offences will not be tolerated. The sentences imposed should reflect the court’s abhorrence of these sorts of offences and should be reflected in specific and general terms,” the acting DPP said.
But Jackman’s attorney Sally Comissiong, who appeared on his behalf amicus curiae, urged the court to allow the first-time offender the opportunity to repay the money.
“[He] just needs an opportunity to do so,” said Comissiong who added that the complainant had in his statement stated that he wanted his money back.
“He [Jackman] is making a genuine effort. He is still trying. He has a lucrative civil practice. Whatever the sentence, he [should] be given the opportunity to make good on that balance.
“Give him that opportunity . . . a suspended sentence with the alternative to pay the balance if possible . . . to enable him to continue to practice. He is not a flight risk. He is well-known in his district, never missed a court attendance; . . low risk of re-offending and has no antecedents,” the lawyer added.
Jackman is expected to know his fate on November 9.
