‘Cindy’ blasts Judge over ‘harsh’ sentencing of Irma looter
Now, residents are taking to social media to decry a 2-year sentence handed down by the same judge to a Belle Vue resident, Shamoii A. Dagou, who reportedly looted a flat-screen television after observing several others looting in the aftermath of hurricanes Irma and Maria of 2017.
He was sentenced to 26 months at Her Majesty’s Prison on Wednesday, July 19, 2019, just days after the July 12, 2019 sentence of the St Vincent national.
But is the ruling handed down by Justice Smith too harsh in relation to her earlier sentence handed down for murder?
Judge was irresponsible – Rosan-Jones
Vocal resident and social commentator Cindy R. Rosan-Jones has now moved to publically berate Justice Smith in a Thursday July, 25, 2019, social media post.
“Let me just say that the looting that went on in this territory after the hurricanes was deplorable. There is no defense or justification. However, to toss this young man in jail for 2 years for looting a $300 TV is irresponsible of this Judge; especially given the precedent that has been set in some other cases for the same looting during the aftermath of the hurricane,” she said.
Questioning the fairness of the ruling handed down by Justice Smith, the controversial resident in her social media post, also said, “We have to be extremely careful when we decide to unconscionably, grossly affect the lives and future of our young people in particular. Especially our MEN.”
Rosan-Jones further said that based on the precedent set in the cases, and the positive factors alluded to by the young man during this ordeal, “he does not deserve to lose 2 immediate years of his life or the aftermath of jail time. The BVI as a society, is very unforgiving to prisoners,” she underscored.
No Sympathy – Resident
However, while Rosan-Jones’s views were against the harsh penalty given to the looter, several others on her social media posts shared disagreements with the points she raised.
One resident, Bennet Smith in lashing back at Rosan-Jones said, “Sorry! No sympathy here. The morning after Irma, by dawn, I was out, along with others, clearing the roads in the East End, Beef Island area. It never crossed my mind that I should be beating down and destroying those already injured.”
Pointing to looting as a deliberate vile attack on the country, its law-abiding residents, the economy and the way of life, he said, “My view is that looters should have been shot on sight as appropriate treatment for the despicable scum that they showed themselves to be. They declared war on the country and the country should have responded appropriately and be prepared to respond in the future.”
One other resident, Ms Colette Corea, indicated that the convicted looter was employed at a police station and hence, "This may have been viewed as an aggravating factor as the message it sends is that he ought to have known better."
"I agree the sentence was a bit stiff though," she said.
Legal Training Coming
Meanwhile, recognising the need to create legal guidelines with regards to the approach to be taken by judges and magistrates sitting in the Criminal Division in determining a sentence, Honourable Justice Iain Morley, QC through the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court will be conducting a series of training as early as Monday, July 29, 2019.
The Training implementation intention is to result in a more uniform approach to sentencing practice, greater consistency in sentencing, transparency, and in turn, greater public confidence in the administration of criminal justice.
Participants to be trained at the seminar are: the Attorney General and his officers, the Prosecuting Team at the Director of Public Prosecutions Office, the Magistracy, the Commissioner of Police and his officers, the Superintendent of Prisons and his officers, Social Development Department, the Probation Department and the Chairman of the Parole Board.
.png)
Follow Us On
25 Responses to “‘Cindy’ blasts Judge over ‘harsh’ sentencing of Irma looter”
Under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, criminal contempt has been defined as the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which:
(i) Scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court, or
(ii) Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding, or
(iii) Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
So it is only Cindy post about this? please!