'I will send a message of deterrence!'- Tamia N. Richards to curfew breakers
The magistrate’s remarks came while addressing the court via Zoom on Thursday, April 30, 2020, during the supplemental mitigation of defence attorney for Frett, Mr E. Leroy Jones, who attempted to seek minimal punishment for his client who smuggled a man from the US Virgin Islands into the Territory during the curfew in early April.
Mr Frett was charged with Illegal Entry, Smuggling and Breach of Curfew, to which he pleaded guilty to in a previous court appearance.
Discount should be across the board- Jones
Ms Richards reminded Mr Jones that during his initial mitigation, which he did in a previous court appearance, he said his client was only assisting a friend and it was not done for money. Nonetheless, phone records indicate that he was part of a smuggling operation.
In response, Mr Jones said it was because of this he was going to give supplemental mitigations orally to the court
He argued that his client pleaded guilty to the offences and “he should receive a one-third discount' across the board, including on fines.
Mr Jones made reference to the case of Mr Bryan Bolan who his client smuggled into the Territory. He said Bolan was not given a reduced sentence on his fines and his sentences were given consecutively.
He also made reference to the case involving a Mr Cordel A. E. O'Neal to support his 'supplemental' mitigation.
'You have not written a book'
But the magistrate said Mr Jones was not Mr Bolan's lawyer and he had no authorities to support his argument.
Mr Jones did not provide a copy of his supplemental mitigation to the court.
“My lady it is my understanding of the law and the interpretation of that guidance once the defendant pleaded guilty, a third [discount] is going to be handed to him,” he said.
The Senior Magistrate then replied: “That’s not my understanding,” she said, adding that if he had any authorities to beef up his argument that his client is entitled to a discount she would be willing to consider it.
“You have not written any textbook, and you have not sat on any benches,” she said.
She argued, as the magistrate, there are circumstances when a court can determine whether the defendant should be given consecutive sentences because concurrent may not give the matter justice.
'I will send a message of deterrence'
She then stated that “I will send a message of deterrence. Who doesn’t like it the court of appeal is open to them, let them file their application. I am willing to stand by any and every decision that I make.”
“I live in this Territory, I am from this Territory, I will do my best for this Territory. Who like it like it, who don’t, don’t. It doesn’t cost me any sleep,” she added.
The Magistrate said when she delivers her verdict today, Friday, May 1, 2020, the defence has the option to appeal it.
Mr Jones was also required to provide to the court electronic copies of his references to authority to support his supplemental mitigation.
“When persons opt to break the curfew in the middle of a global pandemic that has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide and has sickened many millions more, the court of appeal will have to be the one to say that in spite of that, in spite of the Premier closing our borders to protect our health, the defendant who came before this court should only have given a slap on the wrist?” Magistrate Richards stated.
She continued: “When persons have lost their lives here and in the world? That is for the court of appeal. It would be on their conscience … I will send a message of deterrence! That’s what the law says I must do!”
.png)
.png)
.png)
Follow Us On
49 Responses to “'I will send a message of deterrence!'- Tamia N. Richards to curfew breakers”
This is>>>d woman
Most of them curfew breakers was i***** p*****e but we know the force got more so them let most a them go free smh
The magistrate is not determining if the defendant is guilty, her job is just to sentence him. Please give him the maximum. no slap on the wrist.
He never admitted guilt to the matters concerned by the prosecution evidence. The proper place for that evidence to be adduced would have been at the trial stage; not after-the-event. The man is entitled to justice. It is not justice for him to be sentenced on the basis of evidence that was not heard during the case. The judge is at odds with basic principles of the law, and demonstrates impartiality in her justifications: “I’m from here”; “I will do what is right for here” etc. The judge needs to stick to the confines of the law.
Yes the statement is prejudicial as it lacks impartiality and may well be grounds for a successful appeal. Magistrate should have kept this to herself.
Let's see if her brother will be also as a deterrent for possession of a unlicensed fire arm . What is good for one should be good for all
Counsel for the defendant,you appeared to be unprepared for these proceedings,while the the sr,magistrate was well prepared on the law.
I agree with the sr magistrate,not on her personal views BUT on a point-of-law.LAW-IS-LAW.
Legal team do not support and agree with views of persons in authority: legal team supports the law and the authority of the law.
Dear Counsel for the defendant, There are several Amendments to the ["Criminal Procedure Act, Chapter 18 of the laws of the Virgin Islands] as it relates to " Sentencing guidelines ". Did you read that law?
There are several procedural-authorities,example [" R v Alton Phillips SCCA 107/88 (15.5.89)-Supreme court of Jamaica, etc.etc, but you are coming before the learned EXPERIENCE senior magistrate,esquire,with words such as:-
["my lady it is MY-UNDERSTANDING of the law and the interpretation of that guidance"-blah blah blah?]
Defense counsel. "where is the written authority,for the legal basis on a reduced sentence?"
Clearly,the senior magistrate [ a former crown-prosecutor] is verse with the law on sentencing GUIDELINES, and she will sentence according to LAW.
And I hope that every citizen,including all who benefitted from the fast-track-system, by andrew fahie, and become belonger citizens will join the sr,magistrate,to say:-["Legal team belong to this country,legal team will protect and defendant this country from crime and violence during covid-19 and beyond"].
Dear sr.magistrate,pass sentence according to law:If the defense counsel believes that your sentence is too harsh or too severe,he has the lawful authority,to appeal your sentence,in the high court of justice.
This is a free and democratic society,with a Constitution,so Let justice reign.
God save the queen and Her Criminal Justice System,and the sr.magistrate who render justice according to bvi law.
One love.
That is a shame, that cannot be justice
Men please obey.. she means what she say... she will send u away...
Klayto is legally correct,on impartiality and fairness.
Let's go to the Constitution,to see if the defendant has any "fundamental right and freedoms guaranteed under the BVI Constitution,as a person charged and convicted for a criminal offence.
Chapter 2 of the 2007 BVI Constitution declared [Provision to secure protection of law] and that section states:-
[" If any person is charged with a CRIMINAL-offence,then,unless the charged is withdrwn (dismissed for want of prosecution) the DEFENDANT SHALL be afforded a FAIR-hearing within a reasonable time,by an INDEPENDENT and IMPARTIAL court established by LAW"].
So, the court must be independent and Impartial according to the Constitution.
The defendant has pleaded guilty,and the court,having herard the facts of the case, accepted the facts as evidence presented by the prosecution,so the court convicted the defendant,on the evidence presented and now has to consider what is the appropriate sentence,based on the merit and circumstances of the case,with an impartial and independent mentality.
The sections of [provision to secure protection of law in the constitution] continues with some subsections..
The subsection states:-
[" Every person who has been CONVICTED by "a-court" of a CRIMINAL offence,shall have the RIGHT-
(a) to APPEAL to a superior court against the conviction or SENTENCE or both as may be prescribed by LAW"]
I like this democratic news site,VINO,because once a blogg is not defamatory to any one's character,vino will publish it..
The blogger "klayto" is very observant,on a constitutional-point.may be its a person with a legal background.
Let justice reign in this free and democratic BVI.
One love.
(a) to APPEAL to a superior court against the conviction or SENTENCE or both as may be prescribed by LAW"]. That’s what you posted according to the constitution. The defendant was already convicted and about to be sentence. Appeal must always be on a point of law and sentencing. Show me where in any appeal where a persons conviction was quash because the magistrate or judge mouth them off before or after sentencing? I’m waiting on you point of law.
Send that message to J... c....
fair or impartial?
I agree with her statement. By his behaviour he was making things personal to ALL of us!
Tell me what is wrong in that or the magistrate saying that she will send a strong message.
People breaking the Curfew for all those foolish reasons and putting, not ,only the fool/ offenders life in danger but other people's lives, they must feel the full brunt of the law.
This pure ignorance for people breaking the Curfew because it is not NO simple curfew can only put his or her life in danger but other people's life.
Stop all you ignorance please and show some type f common sense, although as I can see, it is not common.
Reading the many comments tells me that 98% of society do not understand how the criminal justice system operates.
First of all,tamia Richards is a magistrate appointed by the judicial and legal service commission under the constitution.
A magistrate is the adjudicator of both facts/evidence of a case and of the law.her feelings about crime stays at home.
A magistrate must hear or see the evidence,look at the law,then analyse the circumstances of the case on merit,give a verdict and pass sentence according to law.
The headline of this case is 'I will send a message of deterrence!' and 'said persons are then free to appeal her decision in high court'. So Tamia has expressly said that the defendant has a fundamental right to appeal,but she did not direct the defense on the provisions in law or in the constitution to make such an appeal.
The writer '@ legal team' has assisted the magistrate in identifying the section in the constitution,which makes the provisions for an appeal after sentence.In one of the notes the writer legal team said that Tamia will become a queen's counsel. I did not read a writing of criticism coming from the writer.
Based on my observations the writer 'legal team' did not criticize the magistrate,but highlighted the provisions,which I find to be excellent research on that fundamental right to appeal to the high court.
I observed also that the writer 'legal team' agree with the comments of the writer 'klayto' may be on knowledge of past sentences,which is subjected to an appeal if passed based on personal emotions.
I agree with both writers 'klayto' and 'legal team'.
There are several authorities 'case-law' where the court of appeal and the privy counsel held,that a judge/magistrate misguided herself,based on emotions for words used before sentencing.
Not that the sentence was inappropriate and unjust,but clearly,it would appear,based on words used to be inappriate.
Tamia is not a law enforcement police officer.she is a magistrate,sitting on queen's bench to balance justice.
The rise is crime or breaches of curfew should be a concern to everyone,not only police,dpp or magistrate.
However,to make a statement from the bench of how you feel as a born citizen,can 'appear to affect justice.
You heard the presentation from both sides,you read the law,and look at the sentence,and the sentence you impose will send a message to the 'would-be-law-breakers.
To a personal reason why you deterring curfew breaker is a good ground for an appeal under the section the 'writer 'legal team' defined in the constitution.
I wish Tamia and tiffany well in their careers.writers,whenever you read a note from another writer which has to do with your fundamental right and freedoms in a society.dont take what you read for granted because every day,you pay lawyers a lot of money to go at the court to protect your rights under the justice system.even though you commit murder,you still have a right to a fair hearing, a fair trial by an independent and impartial court of law.
The bloggers on this news site,must come together,and lets make a financial donation to vino,legal team and associates say so.Lets buy a plaque for vino.
Legal team, after reading this blogg, only wish that legal team could have explain it on that level by the blogger bvi-qc. Please, bvi-qc, take this blogg to ZBVI for further public announcement.
Legal team and associates,will never,ever be against law enforcement officers, or prosecutors, or magistrates, or judges, or defense lawyers or persons arrested and charged and prosecuted for criminal offences under the criminal justice system.
But legal team can say, that when a person is alleged to have committed a criminal offence,under the law of the BVI, that person DID-NOT commit the offence under the law of any police officer, like [super cop] or the law of the dpp or the law of the magistrate or the law of defense counsel or the law of the citizens.
Therefore,NO police officer [like super cop] or any other person in authority who forms part of the criminal justice system,has the right to rough you up,with words or with assault etc, based on their personal feelings, of how they feel about you personally or about fighting crime in the bvi etc.
["Legal team don't support people in authority, legal team supports the law,the constitution and the criminal justice system"]
One love bvi.