Court of appeal to decide whether convicted burglar’s sentence was excessive

The Court of Appeal has reserved its decision on whether the 14-year sentence given to Tyson Leon Edwards for aggravated burglary was “manifestly excessive” as his attorney has argued.

When the matter came up before the trio of Justice Rajendra Narine, Justice Jefferson Cumberbatch and Justice Francis Belle, the appeal judges indicated they needed time to consider whether the approach of the sentencing judge was correct.

Edwards had been given a starting sentence of 19 years for two counts of aggravated burglary. However, after deductions were made, he was left with a 14-year prison sentence.

He was also given lesser prison terms for offences of firearm and ammunition possession, unlawful wounding, and handling stolen property. However, those sentences run concurrently.

Edwards’ attorney-at-law Safiya Moore appealed the sentence, saying that the trial judge’s sentences in respect of both counts of aggravated burglary were “manifestly excessive”.

She said while Barbados did not have an appellate guideline decision specific to aggravated burglary, there were numerous sentences from the High Court that were useful at showing the average range of sentences.

The attorney also argued that the sentencing judge failed to take into account the relevant mitigating factors of the appellant.

Moore is asking the Court of Appeal to exercise its discretion, alter the sentence and impose a less severe punishment.

However, Senior State Counsel Oliver Thomas, who is appearing on behalf of the respondent, has urged the court to dismiss the appeal.

In his submissions, he said that even though the trial judge had erred in sentencing in relation to the firearm offences, it was to run concurrently and was less than the other sentence.

The state prosecutor said despite the “misapplication of principle”, the court had still arrived at a fit sentence and one that was within an acceptable range.

He maintained that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was in keeping with binding local precedents.

Thomas argued that the sentences were fair and proportionate to the gravity of the offence and asked the Court of Appeal to affirm the sentences of the trial judge.