Convicted men Akil William McAllister Grant and Livardo Roghiles Hinds were on Friday sentenced to seven years in prison for their roles in the unlawful disposal of the body of the late Michael Mapp.
But after crediting them with the one-third discount for their guilty pleas and the time they had already spent on remand, it was found that Grant had already served the time for his crime while Hinds had 95 more days in jail.
Grant, of Blades Hill No. 2, St Philip had previously pleaded guilty to unlawfully disposing of Mapp’s body between May 18 and 24, 2016 while Hinds, of Durants, Lodge Road, Christ Church admitted that without lawful authority or reasonable excuse he assisted in the burial of Mapp’s body with intent to impede the lawful apprehension or prosecution of Grant and another man.
Mapp’s body was discovered in a shallow grave in a canefield at Bayfield, St Philip.
He was last seen by family and friends in the evening hours of May 18, 2016.
Before Justice Worrell handed down the sentences during a virtual sitting on the No. 2 Supreme Court attorney-at-law Arthur Holder had pleaded on Hinds’ behalf, asking for a starting sentence of six to seven years. He further submitted that after the guilty plea and the 1,609 days his client had spent on remand were credited the final sentence would be that of time served.
Defence counsel Dennis Headley made submissions on Grant’s behalf on Thursday and he urged the court to impose a sentence of time served on his client who had already spent 1,338 days on remand.
On Friday, Deputy Director of Public Prosecution Alliston Seale had asked for a nine-year starting sentence for the convicts on the grounds that the two had not only committed a serious offence but had callously disposed of Mapp’s body.
Seale pointed out that Hinds was sent for by the perpetrator of the actual killing and arrived at the location on the same day and assisted in the burial of the body. Grant, he said, was present at the actual killing.
The prosecutor said: “This must be at the higher end of the totem pole. Why, because this was one a murder. . . There was no attempt by any party . . . to even determine whether or not the man was dead. There is no indication that anyone sought assistance . . . none of them being medical practitioners they could not simply assume that he was dead because he was shot.
“And they buried him in a hole like a common dog. Only an animal I believe that you would treat in that way. This is a human being. This is not the ordinary run-of-the-mill death.”
Justice Worrell agreed with the Crown’s submissions but departed from the starting point.
The judge said: “We know exactly what transpired . . . but is this a case where there can be extreme circumstances? In other words, if you have a starting point of nine years for this one, then what happens if there is a question of burning, what happens if there is a question of two bodies as opposed to one? “If we start with the nine-year sentence here, what happens when we have more aggravating circumstances than this particular matter? So that is my only departure from nine years but I am in agreement with counsel that it is a serious offence and it is clearly over the five-six year threshold.”
