Prosecutor, defence agree on sentence for manslayer

Describing it as “one of the saddest cases” he has ever dealt with, Senior Counsel Andrew Pilgrim urged the High Court not to place Rommell Johnaton Bishop behind bars for killing his older brother over 13 years ago.

Bishop, of Harlington Road, St Philip, appeared before Justice Randall Worrell in the No. 2 Supreme Court last week and pleaded not guilty to murdering Robert St Pierre on May 4, 2011, but guilty to manslaughter.

Pilgrim, who represents the convicted man, said: “The facts paint a picture of the level of ill-treatment, I would say by the deceased, the convicted man’s brother, which was ongoing for a period of time, but on the day in question, perhaps elevated to some harassment of beating up and beating up some more until eventually the accused man resorted to the use of a knife. The rest, as they say, is unfortunately history.”

The senior counsel added: “This is one of the saddest cases I have had to deal with in terms of interacting with the father who came to my office in a broken state saying that he was going to lose both of his sons.”

Pilgrim urged the court to remember that “a significant element of provocation and self-defence” existed in the case.

He identified the aggravating features of the offence, including the use of a weapon and its disposal afterwards, as well as the post-offence conduct where Bishop did not seek to get medical help for St Pierre after stabbing him.

Mitigating in his favour was the element of provocation and the lack of premeditation, as the act was “essentially spontaneous”, Pilgrim said, as he pointed to the convict’s guilty plea, clean record, remorse, cooperation with the police and the fact that he was 17 at the time of the offence.

“The courts are very much aware of cases similar to this in which there is significant provocation and self-defence, involving family members, where there is significant contrition, and the person’s record is clean, and those matters can weigh so heavily that the court can be moved to consider not incarcerating the convicted man,” he said.

Pilgrim insisted Bishop’s case fell into “a special category” where the court could justify not incarcerating the convicted man.

Terming Bishop’s actions as those of a battered person who “snapped”, Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Alliston Seale SC urged the court to consider a suspended sentence.

In his sentencing submissions, he too said that the case was “an exceptionally sad one”.

“We can agree that this was a long relationship of abuse, and I would put this in a category which basically does not exist because there isn’t any battered brother syndrome. This looks like one where the individual snapped . . . because it was a long history of abuse,” he said, noting that information gleaned from other individuals indicated that Bishop had often been beaten by his older brother.

“The deceased was described as being a bully towards his younger brother, and they cited instances where Mr St Pierre extorted money from Mr Bishop and slapped him around disrespectfully,” Seale added.

Saying the case had reached the threshold of a custodial sentence, as any death must be taken seriously, he nevertheless insisted that consideration must be given to all the circumstances.

Although Acting DPP Seale agreed with most of the mitigating and aggravating features outlined by the defence, he urged the court to monitor the convicted man for a period after the matter was concluded before the court.

“I prefer to see some degree of management, and even if it is not the management that calls for the Probation Department to use its resources to monitor the now-convicted man, I prefer that the sentence be suspended that he would have to monitor himself because he knows full well if he finds himself before the court again what will happen,” the senior counsel said, adding that the killing of another person must not be trivialised.

The sentencing phase of the case continues on Wednesday.