Man slapped with $15 000 fine for ‘mistake’

Derwin Myron Worrell has to pay the High Court $15 000 for the “mistake” of having 20 illegal rounds of ammunition. A third of that money had to be paid on the spot on Friday.

Justice Carlisle Greaves imposed the fine on the Maynards Housing Area, St Peter resident and ordered that the remaining $10 000 be paid in three months. Failure to settle that balance would result in an alternative sentence of five years in prison, which is the remainder of an eight-year starting sentence.

On November 20, 2015, officers executed a search warrant at Worrell’s residence and found the bullets in two socks in a plastic bag. One sock contained eight rounds of 9 mm ammunition while the other had one 9 mm round, nine .45 rounds, one .32 round, and one 12-gauge shotgun cartridge.

“Them is mines. I will take responsibility for them,” Worrell told the cops when asked to account.

He exercised his right to an attorney-at-law and after consulting with the lawyer, he gave police “no comment” answers to several questions.

But on Friday, Worrell, who is represented by attorney-at-law Angella Mitchell-Gittens told the No. 3 Supreme Court: “Your Honour, I made some mistakes in my life and I . . . apologise.”

In making submissions on sentencing Senior State Counsel Neville Watson said what was aggravating in the convicted man’s case was that the ammunition was “live” assorted rounds.

“They say where there’s smoke there is fire. Where there is ammunition there is bound to be guns. That ammunition represents four types of weaponry that, in itself, I find to be aggravating since no firearms in relation to those types of ammunition have been recovered from the now-convicted man,” the prosecutor said.

He added that Worrell also had a clear intent to ensure that the ammunition was not detected as they were secured in socks.

“We put feet in socks, not ammunition,” Watson stated.

The prosecutor said what went in Worrell’s favour, however, was the fact that the ammunition was off the streets and also that he had no prior gun convictions.

Watson said while the custodial threshold had been crossed, a conviction could be recorded in the form of a fine rather than incarceration.

In mitigating on Worrell’s behalf, Mitchell-Gittens Gittens said this was not a case where the ammunition was found on the streets, and there was also nothing to indicate her client’s purpose for having the bullets.

Both counsels agreed that a fine would be an appropriate sentence.