Moore in prison for two more years for gun crime

As of Tuesday, Kadeem Shamar Moore has two years, 345 days left to serve in jail for boldly walking in his Vauxhall, Christ Church neighbourhood with a loaded gun two years again.

That is how much time he has left of a nine-year starting sentence imposed on him by Madam Justice Laurie-Ann Smith-Bovell after the judge took several factors into consideration, including his guilty plea and the time he had spent on remand at Dodds in connection with the offence.

“Persons walking about the neighbourhood with firearms is a danger to our culture and any information on such behaviour must be a concern to all right-thinking members of society,” Justice Smith-Bovell said.

“It is of grave concern to this court that persons feel so emboldened that they can walk about with these firearms exposed. Clearly, such behaviour will drive fear into the hearts of ordinary Barbadians and the court feels sentences must indicate that all persons so inclined to this type of behaviour that it will not be tolerated,” the judge said as she handed down the ruling in the No. 4 Supreme Court this afternoon.

It was revealed that police from the Anti-Gun Unit were on March 1, 2020 conducting investigations at Vauxhall, Christ Church following a report that two shirtless men were in possession of firearms.

While navigating a track between houses, the officers saw Moore walking towards them. He was stopped and told of the probe and a search was requested.

A grey and black .380 calibre pistol was found in the crotch area of the pants he was wearing and when asked to account for it, he responded: “Officer, you dun know how it is out here. Men want to kill we, I have to protect myself.”

Five rounds of ammunition were discovered in the gun – one in the chamber and four in the magazine.

In imposing sentence, Justice Smith-Bovell said while there was no evidence of use of the firearm, in the convicted man’s own words he had the firearm for his own protection which was a clear indication of his intention to use it should the need arise.

She also considered several aggravating factors of the offence, including that the weapon was “a dangerous one” which was loaded, in good working order and capable of firing ammunition in rapid succession [with] at least one bullet in the breach ready to be discharged.

“The weapon was in a public place in a residential neighbourhood thereby placing members of the public at risk . . . . The only mitigating factor to this offence is that the firearm was recovered,” said the judge who added that based on those factors the court considered that an objective starting point for the offence was nine years in prison.

Going in his favour was his early guilty plea, his expression of remorse and his young age.

Justice Smith-Bowell ruled that an 18-month deduction be given as the mitigating factors of the offender outweighed the aggravating factors, leaving Moore with a sentence of seven and half years or 2 737 days in prison.

He was then given a one-third discount for his guilty plea and credited for the 769 days he had already spent at Dodds, resulting in a balance of 1 055 days or two years 325 days to serve on the two-count indictment, to run concurrently from today’s date.

The judge also revealed that the court had considered the means of the first-time offender, as both prosecution and defence submitted that a fine could meet the justice of the case.

She explained that Moore and his family were interviewed in that regard. The court adjourned the matter on a number of occasions to allow the family to explore avenues to acquire funds to assist in the payment of the fine but they did not return on the last two dates to give the court an update on their progress, Justice Smith-Bovell disclosed.

“It was clear to the court even after interviewing the parties, that even if [the court] determined that this case fell within the frame to allow the fine rather than a custodial sentence, neither the now-convicted man nor his family had the means to pay a substantial fine and to pay it within a short period of time so to reflect the seriousness of the offences.

“On reviewing the facts, the court found that the circumstances of the case are so serious that it crosses a custodial threshold. A custodial sentence is the only sentence that could do justice to this case in the circumstances,” Smith-Bovell ruled.