Fraudster’s sentences “manifestly excessive”

A convicted fraudster’s prison sentences for theft and money laundering were “wrong in principle and manifestly excessive”, his attorney argued before the Court of Appeal, saying they were disproportionate compared with similar cases.

King’s Counsel Andrew Pilgrim said Lester Howell’s ten-year and 16-year sentences were especially long given that attorneys who went to trial were granted shorter sentences in breach-of-trust cases, whereas Howell had pleaded guilty to non-breach-of-trust charges.

In June 2023, Howell pleaded guilty to a five-count and a seven-count indictment, including charges of criminal deception, money laundering, theft, forgery, and going equipped.

The charges included: dishonestly obtaining $15 000, $30 000, and $10 000 from the account of Leonard Moore at the Bank of Nova Scotia by impersonating him and withdrawing the sums on February 3, 4, and 5, 2015, respectively; engaging in money laundering between February 4 and August 19, 2015, by directly engaging in transactions involving $6 935, being the proceeds of crime; engaging in money laundering between February 4 and August 19, 2015, by disposing of $48 064, being the proceeds of crime; dishonestly obtaining sums of $15 000, $15 000, $30 000, and $70 000 from CIBC FirstCaribbean on February 16 and 17, 2015, by falsely representing that he was Ezra Wickham, who maintained an account at the bank; stealing $38 645 belonging to CIBC between October 6 and 9, 2015; uttering a forged bill of exchange purporting to be a Republic Bank cheque payable to Martin Leroy King for $38 645 on October 6, 2015; and that, not being at his place of abode on October 9, 2015, he had for use in connection with theft a Barbados Identification Card bearing the name of King Martin L.

He received a starting sentence of 16 years for money laundering and ten years for theft. Following deductions, he was ordered to serve seven years, six months, and 30 days for each count of money laundering and forgery, and three years, six months, and 30 days for each count of theft and criminal deception. He was sentenced to time served on the charge of going equipped. The sentences are to run concurrently.

Howell, through his attorneys Pilgrim and Summer Hassell, is appealing on several grounds, submitting, among other things, that the sentencing judge erred by treating the offence as more serious because of the convicted man’s previous record; by imposing harsher sentences for money laundering and forgery than for theft and deception; and by failing to apply the principle of proportionality in sentencing.

“We submit that the starting point of ten years’ imprisonment for the offences of theft and criminal deception on both indictments, and 16 years’ imprisonment for the offences of money laundering and forging a bill of exchange, were manifestly excessive and disproportionately severe to the offences before the court,” Pilgrim argued.

Principal State Counsel Rudolph Burnett represented the State. The appeal, which is being heard by Justices of Appeal William Chandler, Jacqueline Cornelius-Thorne, and Victoria Charles-Clarke, was adjourned until January 28.