The Queen Crown v Jamal Jonas

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Judge: Blenman J
• Judgment Date: 04 August 2008
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2008] ECSC J0804-1
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL CASE NO: 2008/0009
• Court: High Court (Antigua)
• Date: 04 August 2008

[2008] ECSC J0804-1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CRIMINAL CASE NO: 2008/0009

Between

The Queen

Crown

and

Jamal Jonas

Defendant

Appearances:

Mr. Anthony Armstrong, Director of Public Prosecutions, Mrs. Joanne Walsh Crown Counsel I and Mr. Kayode Omarde Crown Counsel II for the Crown

Mr. John Fuller and Ms. Nelicia Spencer for the Defendant

JUDGMENT ON SENTENCING

Blenman J

1 Mr. Anthony Armstrong, the Learned Director of Public Prosecutions indicted Mr. Jamal Jonas for the murder of Latricia Hilton. He pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. On the request of learned Counsel Mr. Fuller, the Court adjourned the sentencing. The Court ordered that the Social Investigation Report be provided.

2 He is now before the Court for sentencing.

3 At the sentencing, I gave excerpts of my judgment. The following represents my full judgment.

4 Ms. Alethea Byers, Senior Probation Officer, provided a Social Investigation Report. In his mitigation, Mr. Jonas called three witnesses and gave evidence on oath. The facts of the case were presented by the learned Director of Public Prosecutions. I have also paid regard to the evidence of the defendant's witnesses.

5 Law

Section 5 of the Offences Against the Persons Act Cap 300 of Laws of Antigua and Barbuda states the maximum sentence the Court can impose for the offence of manslaughter is 35 years.

6 Facts

Mr. Jamal Jonas is a bus driver and disc jockey by profession. He and Latricia Hilton shared a romantic relationship and together they had a daughter. Their relationship was rocky; they loved each other even though they fought. Mr. Jonas lived with his parents and partially with Latricia. She was upset because she had sent their daughter to visit her mother in Miami and the grandmother was refusing to return her child. Jamal and Latricia quarreled a lot over this. On the night of 24^th October 2006, they had an argument at Latricia's home, and as a result, a fight ensued. Latricia, who was known to be aggressive, was getting the better of Jamal. He was screaming for help. Two of the neighbours entered their home and was able to set them apart. Jamal ran out of the house with Latricia in hot pursuit. He ran into a friend's jeep and they drove away. Jamal then sent his friend Theodore to collect his bus. When Theodore was reversing the bus, Latricia ran behind the bus and threw a brick which broke the windscreen. Theodore drove the bus to where Jamal was and gave him the bus. Jamal went home and collected his father's firearm. Hours later the same night, he returned to Latricia's home and shot six times. One of the shots injured Latricia fatally; she had no chance of survival. The following morning, the defendant, in the company of his Pastor and sister, went to the police station where he admitted to having shot Latricia.

7 Dr. Lester Simon, renowned pathologist who performed the post mortem, stated that the cause of death was a gun shot wound to the right anterior chest. The gun shot wound resulted in the fracture of the ribs, penetrated the lung and heart and caused massive hemorrhaging.

8 Plea in Mitigation

Mr. John Fuller learned Defence Counsel urged the Court to exercise leniency in sentencing the defendant. He quite candidly stated that the Court is obliged to impose a custodial sentence but advocated that the sentence need not be a long one. Mr. Fuller said that Jamal was raised by his mother and father, and subsequently by his father. He has three sisters. Mr. Fuller said that Jamal's mother died seven years ago. Latricia was important to him even though their relationship was stormy and she was aggressive. The defendant is slightly built while the deceased was strong. They had a problem and a fight ensued. When the fight ended, learned Counsel said, Latricia still pursued Jamal. Counsel asked the Court to place heavy weight on the mitigating factors, including the fact that Jamal turned himself in and is remorseful. Learned Counsel Mr. Fuller underscored the fact that Jamal has been on remand since October 2006, he has no previous convictions, and that he has young children who need a father. He said no one wins, everyone loses. He said that Jamal was the victim of abuse at the hands of the deceased.

9 The learned Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Anthony Armstrong implored the Court to pay particular regard to the fact that the legislature in its wisdom has stated that the maximum sentence is 35 years. He referred the Court to the fact that after the fight between Latricia and Jamal ended, he went away, and returned several hours after with his father's gun. Mr. Armstrong said that the defendant had sufficient time to cool. Mr. Armstrong also highlighted that the defendant fired 6 shots, one of which wounded Latricia fatally.

10 Social Investigation Report

In the report, the Probation Officer stated that Jamal has three children, ages 7 to 2 years. He came from a decent family and lived partially with his father (who is a business man). He is the only son. He lost his mother seven years ago. Jamal attended secondary school but he was expelled, having attended the school for 5 years. He later attended the Alpha Institute. He hasa close relationship with his family. The relationship between Jamal and Latricia was rocky, even though he loved her. The deceased was aggressive and confronted him in public. On the night in question, the argument between the two concerned their daughter having gone to the United States of America with Latricia's mother, who was refusing to return the child. Latricia was angry and wanted her daughter returned. During the argument they fought. He was eventually able to get away, after she had beaten him up. He left, went away and returned. It is clear that his parents instilled good values and discipline in the defendant. He enjoyed a good relationship with his father. Jamal played basketball.

11 Jamal's family were aware of the difficult nature of his relationship with Latricia and the fact that violence was involved. The relationship between the two of them persisted in the face of that. He did not divulge to his relatives the difficulties he was experiencing due to Latricia's frustration at not having their daughter returned. The defendant is a private person and did not tell his family about the physical fights he had with Latricia, even though they were aware of them. It is clear that Jamal's family did not approve of the relationship with the deceased, but he continued saying "he loved her". Some members of the community in which Jamal lives regard him as hardworking, respectable and quiet. They regard him as someone who is timid and weak and endured abuse at the hands of the deceased. Other members of the community stated that the defendant indulges in anti-social behaviour.

12 The Probation Officer stated that the defendant was the victim of domestic violence over a period of time and reacted in a manner that is out of character.

13 Court's consideration

In determining the appropriate sentence to impose on Jamal, I must take into account the facts of the case; the gravity of the offence; the applicable principles of sentencing; the mitigating and aggravating factors; the applicable law; and the characteristics of the offence. No two cases are alike. While our Court of Appeal has very helpfully set guidelines that should be utilised in sentencing an offender for the offence of manslaughter, the Court recognises that cases vary and the Judge is therefore clothed with the discretion to impose an appropriate sentence, based on the totality of the circumstances. To do otherwise can result in unfairness ifdifferent cases are treated as though they are alike. A recent review of the decisions of our Court of Appeal indicates that for the offence of manslaughter, the bench mark is set at 15 years and it is scaled up or down depending on the circumstances of the cases. Indeed, there are several decisions from our Court in which the Court has imposed sentences of 15 years for the offence of manslaughter. See Hillary Patrick Tench v The Queen, Criminal Appeal No.1 of 1991 andJames Jn Baptiste v The Queen, Criminal Appeal No.10 of 1994. This bench mark can be scaled up or down. (In several cases depending on the circumstances, the court has increased the sentence from 15 years).

14 Sentencing principles

The Court, in sentencing the defendant, must apply the well known principles of sentencing as stated inR v Sergeant 60 Cr App R 74. Lawton LJ identified the classical principles of sentencing as retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation. These principles were judicially acknowledged by Byron CJ in Desmond Baptiste et al v The QueenCriminal Appeal NO.8 of 2003, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. His Lordship Byron CJ stated as follows:

"Deterrence is general as well as specific in nature. The former is intended to be a restraint against potential criminal activity by others whereas the latter is a restraint against the particular criminal relapsing into recidivist behaviour. Of what value however are sentences that are grounded in deterrence? Specific deterrence may be an ineffective tool to combat criminal behaviour that is spontaneous or spawned by circumstances such as addictions or necessity. Drug and alcohol addiction as well as need may trigger high rates of recidivism. Experience shows that general deterrence too is of limited effect. These sentences tend to lose their potency with the passage of time.'

"The goal here is to protect society from those who persist in high rates of criminality. For some offenders, the sound of the shutting iron cell door may have a different effect. Some however never learn lessons from their incarcerations and the only wayof curbing their criminality is through protracted sentences whose objective is to keep them away from society. Such sentences are more suitable for repeat offenders."

...