Volney says Attin was cold, calculated killer

“A cold and calculated killer” was how Justice Herbert Volney described Chuck Attin yesterday, as he resentenced him to 25 years for the brutal murders of Candice Scott and Karen Sa Gomes 14 years ago. The judge observed that the sheer brutality of the crime and the unequivocal process and direction of Attin’s “mind in the execution leaves no room for even a lingering doubt that he was at that time no spring chicken, no youngster with his mother’s milk on his lips, but a cold and calculated killer, his age notwithstanding.” Attin was 16 years old when he and Noel Seepersad raped, strangled and stabbed the women to death.

Seepersad was sentenced to hang but because of Attin’s age at the time, he was remanded at the President’s pleasure. A recent ruling of the Privy Council sated 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 prisoner’s 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.

In the resentencing exercise yesterday, attorney  Dana Seetahal, representing Attin, suggested that ten prison years was an appropriate period for Attin’s sentence to be reviewed. This means that Attin, who has already served about ten prison years, should now be eligible for a review. But senior State prosecutor Trevor Ward suggested that an appropriate period to review Attin’s case would be after he serves 20 or 25 years. Justice Volney observed that Attin has already benefited from being spared the death sentence because of his age. However, he said: “The view of this court is that the punishment of the law must follow the crime... Anyone reading the cold and chilling details of this slaying would be shocked to learn that the prisoner was just over 16 years of age at the time. But then, when one considers that in TT the age threshold for the commission of serious and violent crimes has, over the years, dropped to even under 16 years in alarming proportions, it becomes easier to fathom the behaviour of this prisoner. This crime calls for nothing short of the severe punishment.”

Justice Volney went on to say: “With the emergence of violent crime pervading our society, it may well seem appropriate for a paradigm shift at this time in the approach of the courts to sentencing offenders, and one that recognised the need for the court to design a pattern of punishment commensurate with the situation in the country. In this regard, a sentence that is not particularly tailored, but stereotyped in that it serves only to maintain prevailing norms of punishment, may well be irrelevant to the needs of an emerging society which constantly calls for introspection of these measures in order to restore public confidence in their effectiveness.”

He also recalled the advice of former Chief Justice Clinton Bernard, that “punishment should be as severe as the circumstances warrant.” Justice Volney said that with this approach in mind he was cognizant that one of the principles of sentencing an offender is general deterrence of others from committing the crime. At this time, he said, it is important that that very small element of the public that appears unmoved by the messages coming out of the court and continues to terrorise law-abiding citizens, must be made to think again, to think of what to expect in terms of retribution from the law when it is allowed to follow its course. He said: “The deviant who carries a gun must know that the penalty for so doing will be so severe that the risk of detection and interdiction is not worth the taking.

“The taking of a human life, far less two on one single occasion, must be understood to attract the condemnation of the law and its retribution. The prospective offender must be made to know that the penalty for taking a life without lawful justification or excuse is either death by hanging or the forfeiture of liberty for life. There must be no mixed signal coming out of our courts on this issue and while the law recognises that young persons and minors can and do commit crimes, the reckoning of the law for the crime must prevail. The young must not take licence to kill on an oft-misconceived belief of statutory cover of protection beyond salvation from the ultimate penalty of death. In this regard, an indeterminate statutory sentence ‘at the court’s pleasure’ should not be construed as one that is inherently compassionate in its application especially when it already serves to avoid the infliction of the ultimate penalty.”