Old age is no excuse

If you are 18 or 87 and you do the crime, you will have to do the time. This was made clear yesterday by the Court of Appeal, when it refused to vary a sentence of 11 years imposed on an 87-year-old man convicted on four counts of sexual offences. In refusing to lessen the sentence, Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma noted it was a “serious and heinous crime.” John Alfonso, a father of ten from Sangre Grande, was found guilty on three counts of sexual offences with a girl when she was nine, and one count of indecent assault when she was 12 years old. Justice Joan Charles sentenced him, on February 19, 2004, to ten years on each count of the three offences, which were to run concurrently, and one year on the assault conviction to run after he served his ten years. Because of his age, he received simple imprisonment.

He appealed his sentence on the ground of severity and his attorney Keith Scotland argued that Alfonso’s eyesight was impaired and, because of his age, he could die in prison. Special prosecutor Devan Rampersad represented the State. The Appeal Court, comprising CJ Sharma and Justices Wendell Kangaloo and Ivor Archie, expressed satisfaction that the trial judge was meticulous in exercising her discretion properly in handing down the sentence that she did, even though the court was considering a longer sentence. Echoing some of the sentiments expressed by Rampersad, the court noted that in recent months it has been signalling its strong disapproval of sexual offences against young girls committed by men who are in positions of trust. The court also accepted that Alfonso had already received a discount when Justice Charles sentenced him to a total of 11 years instead of 15 or 18 years — terms of sentences which usually apply to these crimes.

Asking the court not to interfere with the sentence, Rampersad argued that even if Alfonso’s sentence was reduced by two or three years, on his release he might not be able to live any part of his life in the community again.  He  submitted that Justice Charles was correct in her sentencing, which cannot be faulted in legal principle. He also submitted that the concern regarding Alfonso’s release on compassionate grounds, because of his age and health, must be matters for the Mercy Committee and the President. Scotland’s argument was that Alfonso might not live to be released and information about his failing eyesight was not put before the judge at the time of sentencing and he should be released on compassionate grounds of age and health.

The court was informed that Alfonso’s failing eyesight was receiving medical attention at the prison’s infirmary and he was due for surgery at the Port-of-Spain General Hospital. The CJ observed that even if there was medical evidence worthy of merit, the sentence would remain unchanged. Alfonso committed three of the offences in November 1995, and the fourth in March 1996. After the girl discussed the incidents with a relative, the police were called and charges were laid against Alfonso. At his trial in the Port-of-Spain Assizes, Alfonso did not testify on his own behalf, but called his wife as a witness. He claimed the allegations were fabrications.