Man who chopped friend gets huge slash in sentence
Published:Friday | December 23, 2022 | 1:35 AMTanesha Mundle/Staff Reporter
To access this article in full please login or register today
A mentally challenged man, who was sentenced to 23 years and 10 months after he stabbed and chopped his friend during a dispute over a room, has had his sentence slashed by more than half on appeal. On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal judges set aside...
A mentally challenged man, who was sentenced to 23 years and 10 months after he stabbed and chopped his friend during a dispute over a room, has had his sentence slashed by more than half on appeal.
On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal judges set aside the original sentence and replaced it with nine years and four months after concluding that the trial judge had erred in imposing the sentence in accordance with the sentencing guidelines and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
“It is our view that although at the outset, the sentencing judge had identified relevant factors for her consideration, she erred in principle when she failed to demonstrate that she balanced the relevant sentencing principles appropriately, how she had arrived at the provisional sentence in light of the mitigating and aggravating factors, and what level of discount was applied, if any,” Justice Marcia Dunbar-Green said in handing down the judgement.
Romaun Murray was originally sentenced by Justice Sonia Bertram-Linton in the Manchester Circuit Court in March 2019 after pleading guilty.
He subsequently appealed the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive and outside of the normal range for the offence and that the judge erred in law by failing to adequately demonstrate how the court arrived at the sentence.
Atiba Dyer, who argued on the appellant’s behalf, said that the judge had identified the statutory maximum, the usual starting point and the range of sentences for the offence, but failed to identify the starting point applied by the court in arriving at the sentence.
Dyer further submitted that Justice Bertram-Linton had departed from the guidelines and imposed a sentence that was beyond what was acceptable in law. He added that there was no justification for the judge’s excessive sentence and that she did not express her reason for doing so.
The attorney pointed to the sentencing guidelines, which set out the normal range for wounding with the intent from five to 20 years, and with a usual starting point at seven years.
Dyer also argued that the judge had not given his client a discount of up to 50 per cent for his early guilty plea or credited him for the one year and two months that he had spent in custody before the sentencing.
Andre Wedderburn, counsel for the Crown, conceded that the mathematical formula employed by Justice Betram-Linton was flawed, although she had correctly identified the usual range for the sentence and starting point for the offence.
In arriving at the new sentence, the appellate judges applied a starting point of 10 years to reflect the seriousness of the offence and added six years for the aggravating factors but subtracted two years for the mitigating factors, which included the appellant’s mental condition.
From the 14 years, a discount of 25 per cent was deducted, for the early guilty plea, along with the time spent on remand. The judges also ordered psychiatric treatment for the appellant.
The facts outlined are that on January 22, 2018, the complainant and Murray, who both lived at his grandfather’s home, had an argument after Murray indicated that he wanted the room that the complainant was occupying.
The complainant agreed to give up the room, but the applicant, who was drinking and smoking, returned minutes later and threatened to kill the complainant if he did not leave.
Later that day, the complainant was sitting in the room when the applicant visited him and a fight ensued. Murray then used a knife to stab the complainant in his side, abdomen and chest and also tried to strangle him with his shirt.
Murray’s grandfather and a woman intervened and parted them, but Murray then chased and chopped the complainant on his back, left hand, and left thumb with a machete.
When cautioned for the offence, the applicant said, “Him dis mi.”
After he was charged, Murray further said under caution, “But him nuh dead. Mi did have to run him down and chop him because mi nuh waan become another lamb to the slaughter.”