CCJ affirms four-year jail term for Guyanese men

Jun 10, 2014 News

The Caribbean Court of Justice yesterday upheld the conviction of Paul Lashley and John Campayne for breaking and entering. The court rejected the argument that they were only convicted because their attorney was incompetent.
The two men were convicted of breaking and entering the business premises of Mr. Hemant Narine. The claim was that two laptops, two safes, a passport, cash and credit cards were stolen. Lashley, a former employee of Narine, was able to lead the police to the exact location of the stolen goods which were stashed at Campayne’s home and in a manhole in the pavement on Church Street.
According to court documents, both men gave confession statements to the police admitting their involvement in the break in.
In appealing to the CCJ, the appellants argued that they were convicted because their attorney was incompetent.
They alleged that the confession statements were obtained by the police by force and their attorney did not object to the statements being used as evidence.
In its judgment delivered by Justice Rolston Nelson, the CCJ held that in dealing with issues of incompetence of counsel, “the court is guided by the principles of fairness and due process”. “All counsel…are entitled to the utmost latitude in matters such as strategy.”
The court observed that after the appellants refused to testify about the alleged police brutality, their attorney made a tactical decision not to cross-examine the police witnesses on the issue. The attorney also decided not to lead any evidence in defence in order to deprive the prosecution of the advantage of a closing address.
According to the judge, these strategic moves did not result in an unfair trial. Even without the confession statements, the Appellants would have been convicted based on the real evidence, namely the stolen goods which were recovered. The court also rejected the argument that the four-year prison sentence imposed was too severe. Justice Nelson observed that an appellate court will only set aside a sentence which is “manifestly excessive or wrong in principle”.
In this appeal, the Chief Magistrate properly considered the prevalence and seriousness of the offence, the public interest, the increase in the commission of crimes by young people, the substantial value of the stolen items, and the deliberation and planning involved in the commission of the offence.
Therefore the CCJ would not interfere with the sentence imposed.
The Appellants’ appeal was therefore dismissed; their four-year sentence of imprisonment was affirmed with a four-day credit being given for the time spent on remand while awaiting trial.

Latest News

CCJ affirms four-year jail term for Guyanese men

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| February, 14th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Girls’ Hockey team selected for 2025 PAHF Jr Challenge

Matthew Moore and Joshua John cop Best Lifters...

Imlach, Permaul among top 10 in batting/bowling...

GFF personnel participate in FIFA Concussion...

OVER-50s WORLD CUP – ROUND 6 ROUND-UP

Pepsi/Michael Parris U16 Tournament returns on...

Features/Columnists

Mashramani must break from the shackles of imitation

CARICOM Nations Should Respond Together To new U.S. Policies

Big fish corruption

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

CCJ affirms four-year jail term for Guyanese men

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| February, 14th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]