Free Westmoorings killer

Attorney Dana Seetahal suggested yesterday that seven years imprisonment was sufficient punishment for Chuck Attin, who had raped, stabbed and strangled two Westmoorings women.  She called for a review of his sentence with a view of freeing him. Describing the murders of Westmooring’s housewives Karen Sa Gomes and Candice Scott as “horrific and sadistic,” senior State prosecutor Trevor Ward implored Justice Herbert Volney yesterday, to  not even consider reviewing the sentence of Attin, until he serves a minimum of  20 years. Seetahal suggested that Attin, who has already served seven calendar years (about 10 prison years) in prison, had spent enough time in prison to qualify for a review of his sentence. A review of Attin’s sentence came about as a result of an order by Justice Allan Mendonca in a  constitutional motion brought by Attin, following a ruling by the Privy Council that a prisoner can only be sentenced at the Court’s pleasure and not the President’s pleasure, as was being done under TT law.

The Law Lords also held that because of the indeterminate nature of the sentence, such offenders will be entitled to periodic reviews of sentences which must  take into account the prisoners’ welfare, desirability of reintegrating him into society and his developing maturity through his formative years. However, in each case the courts will have to decide a mandatory period of time which is called the “tariff” period the offender must serve before being considered for review. When the matter came up yesterday in the Port-of-Spain First Criminal Court, Justice Volney raised the issue of whether the Constitutional Court had usurped the function of the Sentencing Court by ordering that Attin’s sentence be reviewed. Justice Volney noted that before reviewing a sentence, the court must determine in advance the tariff period. Since in this case a tariff period was not set, the court must now determine if Attin’s punishment of seven years imprisonment is sufficient for his crime to qualify for a review hearing.

Justice Volney said he was “very uncomfortable” with having to deal with the issue of review, before the issue of punishment was settled. Punishment here means serving the period of time fixed as the tariff. Justice Volney said he appreciated that such was not the intention of the Constitutional Court. He reasoned that his brother judge may have overlooked the main ingredient which is the punishment issue. It was suggested that the order should have only been  for sentencing, thus allowing the court to first deal with the setting of a tariff period,  and when that period comes to an end, then the review process begins. Justice Volney said he did not think that because of a technicality the prisoner must benefit by not having to serve out his sentence. At the review hearing, the court can decide if the offender is ready to be reintroduced into society, or remain incarcerated.

If the offender is to remain incarcerated, then the court will set another review date which may be every two to three years. Seetahal noted that, in spite of such a hiccup, and in obedience to Justice Mendonca’s  order, Justice Volney could still deal with both issues. She suggested that the ten prison years already served by Attin was sufficient punishment and it could also be his tariff period. She argued that the court should accept such a suggestion which will clear the way for going straight into the review process. Justice Volney seemed not ready to accept such a proposal, expressing concern about whether Attin’s punishment, as it stands, was sufficient having regards to the nature of the crime.  Following a brief description of the murders by Ward, Justice Volney observed that the evidence points to Attin’s intention to kill the women. The two women were at the  Scott’s residence on October 3, 1997, when Attin, then 15 years and six months old, and Noel Seepersad, entered the house robbed, raped, strangled and stabbed the women several times about their bodies.  

Because of Attin’s age at the time of the murder, he was sentenced at the State’s Pleasure while Seepersad was sentenced to hang by Justice Lionel Jones. Seepersad’s appeals fell out of the five years period laid down by the Privy Council and as a result his death sentence was commuted to life. He noted that this type of case suggest a higher tariff than others. Ward was of the view that this was not an appropriate time to review the sentence and suggested that Attin must serve a minimum of 15 to 20 years before any consideration be given to granting him a review. He further observed that in the circumstances of this case, if a tariff  had been set at the initial stage, it was unlikely a review would be taking place at this time. Justice Volney needed some time to consider the submissions and has adjourned the matter to April 8, for his ruling. When the matter came up on March 17, the Prison Authority had failed to submit a report on Attin to the court , and it prompted Justice Volney to rebuke the Commissioner of Prisons.

But  Commissioner Leo Abraham, at his retirement function on Friday, felt that a simple phone call could have prevented any unpleasantness.  However, at yesterday’s hearing, new Commissioner of Prison Carlo McHoney showed up with the report and apologised to the court. He explained that the officer assigned to the report was attending a mediation programme, and another officer from “outside” was brought in. Justice Volney said he was sorry his comments were taken personally by Abraham, since it was not intended as such. He added that he has a lot of respect for Abraham.