Justice Baird: Arson, the zenith of diabolical conduct

Peter Mc Donald, found guilty of setting fire to Excellent Stores in 2001 as a diversion to “loot” the cash register, was sentenced to 17 years hard labour yesterday by Justice Melville Baird. In sentencing Mc Donald, Baird said, “The setting of fire to a store in downtown Port-of-Spain is the very zenith of diabolical conduct and society could justifiably be alarmed thereby.” The judge acknowledged that arson was not as prevalent as certain other crimes, but noted that it is a crime that can cause such devastation and calamity that whenever it raises its head, the courts must be astute to ensure that the sentence imposed on the arsonist is an exemplary and a significant one. “Displaying perverse ingenuity, the prisoner (Mc Donald) set fire to the store in order to create a diversion and to rifle the cash register in the ensuing panic and confusion. In this country, there are copycats with the deplorable penchant for exclusively copying things negative and unproductive.

This court by its sentence therefore,” added Baird, “must send a clear and firm message to would-be imitators that they must not go down that road.” Mc Donald, 38, of Malick, Barataria, in his defence put forward by his attorneys Ulric Skerritt instructed by Dawn Mohan, said that he saw smoke coming from inside the store, decided to pass through and exit on Chacon Street. When he saw no one in the building, however, he decided to “loot” the cash register, but was stopped by a security guard. Senior State attorney Wayne Rajbansie prosecuted the case. Before passing sentence, Baird said, “It cannot be gainsaid that arson is a crime of odiousness, so penetrating and serious, so extreme, that it must be placed in a category of it own. It is crime that encompasses and carries in its wake injury, death and destruction. It is a crime that excites the apprehensions of society to the utmost degree.

“The court considers the sentencing principles of retribution and deterrence to be most appropriate to the question of sentence. Over and above that general description of arson, it must be said that there is something peculiarly pernicious about the setting of fire to a store in downtown Port-of-Spain. “It is a notorious fact that the various buildings that house the stores in downtown Port-of-Spain are closely joined together; a fire therefore, started in one store could easily spread to other stores and could eventually envelop an entire block of buildings. This could occasion disaster on an unparalleled scale. “Further, with buildings on fire there would always be the potential for injury and loss of life. Fortunately, the fire in this case was contained to the one building that was destroyed, and there were no casualties. “Another disquieting consideration is that without notice and with speed, store attendants and other store employees, with families and financial responsibilities would be rendered out of a job and on the breadline.”