Court upholds 25-year sentence for killer Chuck

While Attin succeeded in part in yesterday’s judgment, the Court of Appeal’s judgment was one of much importance, since it impacted on all juvenile offenders, giving directions as to the manner in which further review should proceed.

The judgment was delivered by Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma and included Justices Margot Warner and Stanley John.

Representing Attin were attorneys Mark Seepersad and Gerald Ramdeen, while special prosecutor Bindra Dolsingh appeared for the State.

The sentence review process has been creating havoc in the courts, as there have been few guidelines since a Privy Council ruling on minors which changed the wording of a minor’s sentence from the "President’s Pleasure" to the "Court’s Pleasure."

Attin was the test case in this jurisdiction.

In the 24-page judgment, the court noted that the gravamen of a comprehensive report from the probation officer indicated that Attin believes that "he had paid his debt to society," but was never remorseful.

On the sentencing issue, the court said it disagreed with Seepersad’s submission and recognised that Volney had considered Attin’s welfare and rehabilitation. The court stated that the "crime was heinous, and while the court had to consider the appellant rehabilitation, the factors of punishment and deterrence had to be taken into account. In our view, the sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The stark reality is that after eight years of incarceration, there has been little or no change in the appellant’s character."

Additionally, the court noted, "Clearly, reintegration of the appellant into the society at the present time is not at all an option." The judges added, "We recognised however, that in the exceptional case, a review may be required at shorter intervals. An oral hearing will not normally be required unless the Chief Justice thinks that is necessary."

The court observed that "quite apart from the relevant international convention, to which the State may be a party, there can be no doubt that penal sanctions imposed on children or young offenders who are detained at the Court’s Pleasure cannot be harsher than those imposed on adults who are serving life sentences.

"Recent authorities have consistently emphasised the concept of continuing review of the progress made by young offenders. We think, therefore, that the trial judge erred when he ordered that there be no review until after the expiry of the 25-year sentence.

In this regard, therefore, we agree with counsel’s (Seepersad) submission "on this ground of appeal." The court said that Attin, "therefore has succeeded in part in that we hold that his detention must be reviewed periodically — that is to say, at least once every three years or at shorter intervals if exceptional circumstances so warrant."

Attin’s provisional sentence of 25 years took effect from his date of conviction, so that he has already served a significant part of his sentence.

His appeal against the severity of sentence, as it related to the minimum period of 25 years, referred to as "the tariff," has already been dismissed.

Giving more guidance, the court stated, "We wish to point out, however, that as the law stands, it is clear that appropriate legislative provision must be enacted in order to further clarify and streamline the procedure for review. In the interim, we are content to adopt substantially, the approach of the courts of Barbados, which have already responded to the advice of the Privy Council in "Griffith." (a similar matter)

The court stated that it has been informed that there are young offenders who are, at present, detained at the State’s or the Court’s Pleasure. The judgment added, "We therefore direct that the Prison Authorities take appropriate action in relation to all other young offenders whose sentences must now be fixed or reviewed."