After pleading guilty to handling stolen cash and over $100 000 in stolen jewellery in an almost decade-old matter, Michael Anderson Corbin was given a suspended sentence and ordered to pay compensation to the complainants.
“Taking into consideration all of the circumstances of the case and the fact that you have not reoffended since and are considered as having a low- risk of recidivism, the court is of the view that notwithstanding that the offence has crossed the custodial threshold, that circumstances are appropriate for a suspended sentence as permitted under the Penal Reform Act,” said Madam Justice Laurie-Ann Smith-Bovell in Supreme Court No. 4 on Friday.
She sentenced Corbin to two years and 10 months behind bars at Dodds Prison but suspended it for three years and ordered him to pay $7 500 in compensation. Failure to do so by February 28, 2025 will result in him having to serve the sentence.
Corbin, a resident of King Street, St Simons, St Andrew, had admitted that between September 25 and October 10, 2014, he dishonestly undertook or assisted in the retention, disposal or realisation of stolen property, namely US$5 000, €100, CDN$700 and £200 belonging to Ludo Marcelo, knowing or believing the property to be stolen.
He also confessed that between those dates, he dishonestly undertook or assisted in the retention, disposal or realisation of stolen property, namely nine bracelets valued at $56 142, six gold chains valued at $25 185, eight gold rings valued at $32 077, five silver rings valued at $660, four pairs of gold earrings valued at $7 824, one gold pendant valued at $400 and one gold charm valued at $150 belonging to Janet Marcelo, knowing or believing the property to be stolen.
The facts outlined to the court were that when the Marcelos returned to their home on September 25, 2014, they found their safe on the bathroom floor cut open and the cash and jewellery that were in it missing. They contacted the police and afterwards sent pictures of the stolen pieces to several pawn and consignment shops. The complainants later went to one of the stores, recognised some of the stolen jewellery, and reported it to the police.
Two weeks later, Corbin was arrested by police at a jewellery store in the City. He was searched and several pieces of the missing jewellery – some of which had been broken into pieces – as well as foreign currency were found in a bag he was carrying. He told the police that he had received the property from a Guyanese man who told him to sell the jewellery and keep the money. Corbin admitted he had already sold several pieces at various shops around Bridgetown. He had presented his identification card at each of the establishments for their records.
During his interview with the police, Corbin revealed that he had previously worked for the complainants.
“A message must be sent to the public that persons who handle stolen goods are just as culpable as those who actually steal the goods, and they are accessories to the offence and, where appropriate, harsh custodial sentences or harsh fines will be imposed to stamp out this practice,” Justice Smith-Bovell stated.
She gave a seven-year starting sentence, highlighting that the items stolen and received were of high financial value, the high level of stress caused to the complainants, the high level of profit likely to be made by Corbin, and that there was some degree of planning in how the goods were received and disposed of. The lone mitigating factor was that some of the items were recovered.
Regarding the offender, his three previous burglary convictions were seen as an aggravating factor, but that was outweighed by his expression of remorse, low risk of reoffending and his lack of convictions since this charge in 2014. Six months was therefore deducted from the sentence.
Time was also discounted for the delay in bringing the matter to trial and Corbin’s early guilty plea.
Justice Smith-Bovell also noted that in determining the amount of the fine, the court had to consider the self-employed carpenter’s ability to pay.
“Based on your income, the court was satisfied that you will be unable to pay any substantial fine in any reasonable time which the court may impose. You were also given a long opportunity to see if you could find persons to assist with paying a fine, and you have been unsuccessful . . . . The court is of the view that you do have the means to pay some sort of compensation to the virtual complainant who lost and suffered and the emotional distress of having their items pawned off and dissected,” she added.
The matter is up for review on June 7.
