Chuck Attin — killer most brutal

CHUCK ATTIN secured a major victory in the High Court last week. Justice Allan Mendonca ruled that Attin should no longer be kept at the State’s Pleasure, but now at the Court’s Pleasure. But Justice Mendonca did not make this ruling in isolation. He followed the Privy Council’s ruling in the Jamaican case of DPP v Morrison (Privy Council case No 88 of 2001). What was the cause of all this? Attin was just 16 years old when he was found guilty of killing two Westmoorings women and ordered by Justice Lionel Jones in the Port-of-Spain First Criminal Court to be detained at the State’s Pleasure pursuant to Section 79 of the Children Act Chap 46:01. Attin will be remembered as being one of the most brutal killers of the 1990s, compared with Lincoln Guerra in the 1980s. Remember Guerra? Together with Brian Wallen, Guerra killed bank teller Leslie Ann Girod and her seven month-old baby son, Gregg at Waller Field on January 1, 1987. They also slit the throat of Gregg’s father James, but by some miracle he crawled out to the main road and a trucker took him to the hospital where he was treated. He lived to tell the story which led to Guerra and Wallen being convicted. Wallen died in prison, but Guerra was the recipient of the Pratt and Morgan ruling and is now serving life imprisonment for his deeds.

When one thought that was the most brutal act, along came Attin and Seepersad. On July 11, 1994, housewives Candace Scott and Karen Sa Gomes were murdered at Scott’s home in Westmoorings. The women were attacked by two men, who raped them, along with the maid in the presence of their children. The two men were identified as Attin and Seepersad. It turned out that Attin was the killer, stabbing both women and leaving them for dead. Together with Seepersad, they stole a number of household items and escaped in a car belonging to one of the women. The stolen car was spotted in east Trinidad later that night with a flat tyre and Seepersad was held. His arrest led the police to Attin’s home. Three days later, they were charged with murder. By that time, a number of influential persons in the society staged a protest which went as far as the Prime Minister’s residence. Hours before Attin and Seepersad were charged, the State moved with despatch and executed another convicted killer Glen Ashby while his appeal on a constitutional motion was before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There was debate as to whether this hanging was lawful. Attin and Seepersad were found guilty on February 7, 1997. Seepersad was sentenced to death, while Attin was ordered to be detained at the State’s Pleasure. They appealed and the Court of Appeal on November 27, 1997, dismissed their appeal. They also went to the Privy Council, but that too was dismissed on December 10, 1998.

While Attin remained at the pleasure of the State, Seepersad’s death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment because he spent more than five years on Death Row. Attin, through his attorney Dana Seetahal, filed a constitutional motion on August 7, 2003, challenging the constitutionality of his detention. Two cases came to light. In Browne v R (1999), the Privy Council had to consider whether a sentence prescribed by Section 3(1) of the Offences against the Persons Act, 1873, of St Christopher/Nevis, was contrary to the constitution of that jurisdiction. The section provided that a person found guilty of murder who was under the age of 18 at the time of the offence shall not be sentenced to death. The section is similar to Section 79 of the Children Act Chap 46:01. It was held by the Privy Council that it was contrary to the constitution in that it entrusted the decision of the length of the sentence to the executive. It therefore contravened the doctrine of the separation of powers. A similar question arose in DPP v Morrison. There, the question was whether the sentence of detention during the Governor General’s Pleasure is compatible with the constitution of Jamaica. It was held that it was, as it offended against the separation of powers. Based on these two cases, Justice Mendonca had no hesitation. Attin’s attorney submitted that a period of review of her client’s detention should come up every three years. Justice Mendonca granted a declaration that Attin is entitled to have his sentence reviewed by the court periodically. He said Attin should be brought before the court sitting in its criminal jurisdiction for a review of his detention on a date to be fixed by the Registrar.

Attin was 16 when he killed the women. He was 19 when he was convicted and is now 25 behind bars. A date will be fixed for Attin to return to court, but it will not be before Justice Jones who is now in the Court of Appeal. The facts of the case will be highlighted. Does Attin deserve leniency, or should he be kept behind bars for as long as possible? These questions will become relevant at the crucial time. Should Attin be rewarded with a lighter sentence, the State through the DPP will have the right of appeal, according to the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Act. This amendment was introduced during the term of the UNC administration to give the DPP the right to appeal an acquittal by an order of the judge (not a jury), and a lenient sentence of a judge. This has been exercised in several cases of lenient sentences such as the acquittal by Justice Herbert Volney of manslaughter-accused Brad Boyce which is now before the Privy Council.