Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
  • About Us
    • Court Overview
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Past Chief Justices
      • Sir Hugh Rawlins
      • Sir Brian George Keith Alleyne
      • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Adrian Saunders
      • Hon. Sir Charles Michael Dennis Byron
      • Rt. Hon. Sir Vincent Floissac
      • Honourable Sir Lascelles Lister Robotham
      • More..
        • Hon. Neville Algernon Berridge
        • Sir Neville Peterkin
        • Sir Maurice Herbert Davis
        • Justice P. Cecil Lewis
        • Sir Allen Montgomery Lewis
    • Judicial Officers
      • Justices of Appeal
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Davidson Kelvin Baptiste
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Louise Esther Blenman
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Mario Michel
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Gertel Thom
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Paul Anthony Webster [Ag.]
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Gerard Farara
      • High Court Judges
      • Masters
    • Court of Appeal Registry
    • Career Opportunities
    • Legal Internship
    • Court Connected Mediation
      • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Mediation Publications
    • Directory
    • Transcript Requests
  • Judgments
    • Privy Council
    • Caribbean Court of Justice
    • Court Of Appeal Judgments
    • High Court Judgments
    • Digests of Decisions
    • Country
      • Anguilla
      • Antigua & Barbuda
      • Grenada
      • Montserrat
      • Saint Kitts and Nevis
      • Saint lucia
      • Saint Vincent & The Grenadines
      • Territory of the Virgin Islands
    • Year
      • 1972 – 1990
        • 1972
        • 1973
        • 1975
        • 1987
        • 1989
        • 1990
      • 1991 – 2000
        • 1991
        • 1992
        • 1993
        • 1994
        • 1995
        • 1996
        • 1997
        • 1998
        • 1999
        • 2000
      • 2001 – 2010
        • 2001
        • 2002
        • 2003
        • 2004
        • 2005
        • 2006
        • 2007
        • 2008
        • 2009
        • 2010
      • 2011 – 2019
        • 2011
        • 2012
        • 2013
        • 2014
        • 2015
        • 2016
        • 2017
        • 2018
        • 2019
    • Judgment Focus
  • Sittings & Notices
    • Schedule of Sittings
    • Court of Appeal Sittings
    • Chamber Hearing (Appeals)
    • Case Management (Appeals)
    • High Court Sittings
    • Status Hearings
    • Special Sittings
    • Notices
  • Court Procedures & Rules
    • Civil Procedure Rules [WEB]
    • ECSC (Sittings of the Court) Rules, 2014
    • ECSC Civil Procedure Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to Nov 2015]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2014
      • ECSC Civil Procedure (Amendment) (No.2) Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to May 2014]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2011
    • ECSC Criminal Procedure Rules
      • Criminal Procedure Rules SI No. 22 of 2015
    • ECSC Sentencing Guidelines
    • Non Contentious Probate Rules and Administration of Estates
    • Family Proceedings Rules
    • More..
      • Court of Appeal Rules
      • Election Petition Rules
      • Legal Profession Disciplinary Procedure Rules (St. Lucia)
      • Code Of Judicial Conduct
      • Court Forms
        • Introduction of E-Filing
        • BVI Commercial Division E-Filing
        • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Court Proceedings Fees
      • SILK Application Procedure
      • Practice Directions
      • Practice Notes
      • Video Conferencing Protocols
  • News & Publications
    • ECSC Media Gallery
    • Annual Reports
    • Appeals Reports
    • Appointments
    • Press Releases
    • Papers & Presentation
      • Opening of the Law Year Addresses
    • Tributes
  • E-Litigation
    • E-Litigation Portal
    • E-Litigation Instructional Videos
    • ECSC E-Litigation Portal User Information
    • Electronic Litigation Filing and Service Procedure Rules
    • Notices of Commencement
    • E-Litigation Publications
  • J.E.I
    • Structure of JEI
    • JEI Chairman
    • Mandate, Objectives, Standards
    • Programmes Archive
      • Conferences
      • Programmes & Projects
      • Symposiums
      • Training
      • Workshops
    • Upcoming Activities
more
    • About Us
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Mediation
    • Careers
  • Contact
  • Saved for Later
 Home  E-Litigation Portal
  •  Court Procedures And Rules
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Court Forms
    • Election Petition Rules
    • Practice Directions
  •  Judgments
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
    •  Digest of Decisions
  •  Sittings
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
  • Sign In
    
    Minimize Search Window
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Category {{SelectedFilters.length}}x Categories 
    •       {{item.title}} {{selectedCountries.length}}x Countries Country 
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Year {{selectedOptions.length}}x Options 
    
    Sorry can't find what you're looking for try adjusting your search terms
    Appeal
    {{doc._source.post_title}}
    Page {{indexVM.page}} of {{indexVM.pageCount}}
    pdf
    Home » Judgments » High Court Judgments » The Queen v Juan Diaz

    EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

    TERRITORY OF ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

    (CRIMINAL)

    CASE NO. ANUHCR 2020/0053

     

    BETWEEN:

    THE QUEEN

    v.

    JUAN DIAZ

    Defendant

    —————————————

    2020: July 27th,

    September 25th,

    October 5th.

    ————————————–

     

    Appearances:

    Mrs. Shannon Jones-Gittens, Counsel for the Crown

    Mr. Michael Archibald, Counsel for the Defendant

    JUDGMENT ON SENTENCING

    Facts in Brief

     

    [1] SMITH, J.: The complainant, Mrs. Kara-Ann Spencer
    lived with her husband at Sunset Cove Apartments at McKinnons also being
    the overseer of the property. She and her husband used one of the
    apartments as a storeroom for household items and appliances. That room was
    secured by locking the windows and the two external doors which were fitted
    with a cylindrical lock and deadbolt. The defendant, Mr. Juan Diaz also
    occupied one of the apartments.

    [2] On Sunday 7th October, 2018 at about 2:30 p.m., Mrs. Spencer
    went to the said apartment. She noticed that the lock had been damaged and
    that the deadbolt was unlocked. In her deposition to the Magistrates’ Court
    she stated that she looked into the room and realized that the room had
    been ransacked. She stated that she immediately left and returned with her
    husband. It was then that she noticed that several items were missing. Of
    those were a washing machine and dryer, a laundry pedestal, a folding
    table, an ice cooler and some other kitchen items and appliances. The total
    value of the missing items was estimated to be EC twenty thousand, four
    hundred and sixty five dollars and seventy one cents ($20,465.71).

    [3] Upon Mr. Spencer’s arrival, he stated in his deposition that he noticed
    that several of the wooden louver windows were in an incorrect position and
    that a window screen at another window was bent and slightly pulled from
    the window frame. The police were called and shortly thereafter commenced
    their investigations.

    [4] The following morning Mr. Spencer received a phone call from the
    defendant through another neighbour whereby the defendant admitted that he
    had taken the missing items. The police were informed of this development
    and returned to the property with a search warrant to search the
    defendant’s premises. During the search, the police were able to recover
    some of the stolen items: – washing machine, dryer, folding table, serving
    tray and a chafing dish.

    [5] The defendant was taken into police custody and on 11th
    October, 2018 when the allegation was put to him, he elected to write a
    statement. In the statement, he admitted to breaking into the apartment and
    stealing the items. He said he felt bad about it and wanted to speak to the
    owner but only saw him days later and that the police were already
    involved.

    [6] He was subsequently arrested and charged. He was twenty two (22) years
    old at the date of this offence.

    Legal Framework

     

     

    [7] The maximum sentence for the offence of housebreaking and larceny is
    seven (7) years imprisonment. The Court is also empowered to order
    restitution and impose a fine. The offence is contrary to contrary to
    Section 30 (a) of the Larceny Act Cap. 241 of the revised
    edition 1992 of the Laws of Antigua and Barbuda

    [1]

    .

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Pre-sentence Report

    Early Life

     

     

    [8] A pre-sentence report was ordered by the Court on 27th July,
    2020 and delivered to the Court in September 2020. The report was prepared
    by Ms. Nakitia Williams, Probation Officer. The report indicates that the
    defendant is the father of two small boys and that his formative years were
    spent with his father and paternal grandmother as his mother had migrated.
    He added that his mother returned to Antigua when he was aged sixteen (16).
    His father emigrated when he was aged six (6) and last saw him when he was
    fourteen (14) years old.

     

     

    Positives

     

     

    [9] At the Jennings High School the defendant was a part of the music
    programme playing in the steel band. He also passed seven (7) CXC subjects
    graduating with a High School Diploma. Upon leaving high school he secured
    employment as a boat captain and obtained a boat master’s licence. All of
    the persons interviewed by the author of the report spoke of the offender’s
    behaviour being out of character. All expressed shock when they learnt of
    the matter before the Court. A community member when interviewed stated
    that

    “he is not the type of person to get himself into trouble with the law
    or even within the community”

    . It appears to the Court that this defendant is a prime candidate for
    rehabilitation.

    Plea in Mitigation

     

     

    [10] Defence Counsel reiterated aspects of the report and pointed out that
    the offending of the defendant was out of character and was caused by
    desperation on his part. Counsel pointed out that the defendant was facing
    serious financial challenges and that he labored under the misinformation
    that the said premises had been abandoned. This of course was not the case.
    The report also states that the defendant had recently become a father and
    wanted his home to be comfortable for his family.

    Victim impact Statement

    [11] The complainants attended Court and indicated that while the items had
    been recovered, the brand new washing machine was scratched and the dryer
    totally ‘burnt’ out. Mr. Spencer indicated that he and his wife had been
    severely inconvenienced by the defendant’s conduct. They both stated that
    they were put to expense in order to replace the damaged items.

    Construction of the Sentence

    [12] The Court found the following Aggravating and Mitigation factors:-

    Aggravating Factors relating to the defendant

    I. There were no aggravating factors relating to the defendant

    Aggravating Factors relating to the offence

    I. The value of the goods initially stolen notwithstanding that some items
    were recovered

    II. Loss and inconvenience experienced by the victims

    Mitigating Factors relating to the offender

    I. The defendant is a first time offender

    II. The defendant is the father to two minor children

    III. At the time of the commission of the offence the defendant was aged
    twenty two (22)

    IV. The defendant has shown remorse

    [2]

    Mitigating Factor of the offence

    I. A large portion of the goods were recovered

    Sentencing Guidelines

     

     

    [13] The Sentencing Guidelines of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
    dictates that the Court address the seriousness of the burglary relating it
    to the harm caused to the victim in the case. As stated in paragraph seven
    (7) of this decision, in Antigua the offence is worded as Housebreaking and
    Larceny and is contrary to Section 30 (a) of the Larceny Act Cap. 241 of the revised edition 1992 of the
    Laws of Antigua and Barbuda

    [3]

    .

     

    [14] The maximum penalty for this offence is seven (7) years imprisonment.
    In this case the value of the amount of the goods stolen was EC$20,465.70
    with the vast majority of the items being recovered. The Court places this
    level of offending into category three medium where the goods are valued
    between EC$1,000 to EC$50,000 and with no significant additional harm. The
    Court heard from the victims and has noted what they had to say in relation
    to their goods being stolen and damaged.

    [15] In terms of seriousness, the Court after consulting the sentencing
    guidelines would place this level of offending in category ‘C’ where there
    was very little planning and where the defendant acted alone. This offence
    appears to be an offence of opportunity where the defendant seized upon the
    opportunity to break into the apartment and steal the contents therein.

    [16] The maximum sentence of housebreaking as set out in paragraph seven
    (7) is seven (7) years. The Court applies a percentage of 20 per cent of
    the seven years which would result in seventeen (17) months in prison.

    [17] The sentence of seventeen (17) months will be further adjusted
    downwards as the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors. The
    Court will adjust downwards by six (6) months bringing the sentence to
    eleven (11) months. The defendant has also entered an early guilty plea
    which will result in the sentence being reduced further by one third
    bringing the sentence to eight (8) months.

    [18] The Court is guided on the learning of the former Chief Justice Sir
    Dennis Byron in the case of Desmond Baptiste vs. The Queen

    [4]

    where guidelines were set down for sentencing including the guideline of
    imposing non-custodial sentences for young first time offenders. In his
    plea of mitigation Counsel also urged the Court to find that the defendant
    is a fit and proper candidate for a non-custodial sentence.

    [19] The Court is also mindful that it must not pass a custodial sentence
    unless it is of the opinion that the offence was so serious that no other
    sentence can be justified for the offence and clearly this is not the case
    here.

    [20] Consequently, having regarded to all of the above and the Sentencing
    Guidelines of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, this Court will sentence
    the defendant to a non-custodial sentence.

    [21] The Probation of Offenders Act
    states at section 2(2);-

    “Where any person has been convicted on indictment of any offence
    punishable with imprisonment, and the court is of the opinion that, having
    regard to the character, antecedents, age, health or mental condition of
    the person charged, or to the trivial nature of the offence, or to the
    extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed, it is
    inexpedient to inflict any punishment or any other than a nominal
    punishment, or that it is expedient to release the offender on probation,
    the court may, in lieu of imposing a sentence of imprisonment, make an
    order discarding the offender condonably on his entering into a
    recognizance with or without sureties, to be of good behaviour and to
    appear for sentence when called on at any time during such period, not
    exceeding three years, as may be specified in the order”.

     

    [22] Having regard to the above, the Court and will place the defendant on
    probation for two (2) years. He will be required to adhere to the
    requirements of his probation supervisor and the terms of the Probation
    Order. If he breaks the Probation meaning if he commits further offences
    whilst on Probation he will spend six (6) months in prison. He is to enter
    a recognizance with the Probation Department without a surety.

    [23] In considering ancillary matters, the Court orders that the defendant
    pays to the victims the sum of EC five thousand ($5,000) which represents the value of the damaged items. This
    compensation is to be paid on or before 31st January, 2021 in
    default he will serve six (6) months in prison.

    Ann-Marie Smith

    High Court Judge




    [1]

    Within the ECSC, in the nine member states and territories there
    are different words used to describe entering premises with intent
    to commit an offence, (e.g. the words ‘burglary’ and
    ‘housebreaking’ are often used), and there are often different
    maximum sentences. For the purposes of this guideline, the word
    ‘burglary’ will be used generically to cover all non-aggravated
    types, and whether as conspiracy, attempt, or a substantive
    offence. Where charged, sentences for aggravated burglary will be a
    separate guideline.


    [2]

    The author of the probation/pre sentence report stated “it is
    worthy to note that the defendant was tremendously cooperative
    throughout the interview and appeared remorseful about the matter
    before the court”.


    [3]

    Within the ECSC, in the nine member states and territories there
    are different words used to describe entering premises with intent
    to commit an offence, (e.g. the words ‘burglary’ and
    ‘housebreaking’ are often used), and there are often different
    maximum sentences. For the purposes of this guideline, the word
    ‘burglary’ will be used generically to cover all non-aggravated
    types, and whether as conspiracy, attempt, or a substantive
    offence. Where charged, sentences for aggravated burglary will be a
    separate guideline.


    [4]

    HC Criminal Appeal, 8 of 2003

    /the-queen-v-juan-diaz/
     Prev
    Stuart A. Lockhart v Valentina Nonini et al
    Next 
    James Lowry v Radwan Kaid
    Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court

    2nd Floor Heraldine Rock Building
    Waterfront
    P.O. Box 1093
    Castries
    Saint Lucia
    T: +1 758 457 3600
    E: offices@eccourts.org

    • About Us
      • Court Overview
      • Career Opportunities
      • Directory
      • Privacy Policy
    • Judgments
      • Court Of Appeal
      • High Court
    • Sittings
      • Chamber Hearing
      • Court of Appeal
      • High Court
    • News & Updates
      • Appointments
      • Press Releases
    • Civil Procedure Rules
      • Court Forms
      • Practice Directions
    © 2022 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. All Rights Reserved

    Submit your email address and name to subscribe for email notifcations.

    [email-subscribers-advanced-form id="1"]
    Bookmark
    Remove Item
    Sign in to continue
    or

    Bookmarked Items
    •  Home
    • Judgments
    • Sittings
    •  News
    •  more