Advertisement 87
Advertisement 323
Detectives escort the accused, Timmy Williams, centre, to court on June 1, 2021. He will be sentenced on June 14, 2024. (iWN photo)
Detectives escort the accused, Timmy Williams, centre, to court on June 1, 2021. He will be sentenced on June 14, 2024. (iWN photo)
Advertisement 219

The prosecution says it is not against a suspended prison sentence for a man whose younger brother died of injuries he sustained in a mutual chopping incident.

On Friday, Senior Crown Counsel Richie Maitland told the High Court that the autopsy report suggested that Divey Larry Williams, 36, would not have died had he sought medical attention for his injuries, as his brother had done.

Divey chopped his brother, Timmy Williams, then 38, at Lauders, on May 27, 2021. Timmy responded similarly but went to seek medical attention for his injuries.

Divey, however, did not and was found dead the next day.

Williams has pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter by reason of an unlawful act.

Advertisement 21

On Friday, Maitland spoke to the written submission he had made on sentencing.

“This is a sad and sensational matter in which one brother is responsible for the death of another,” the prosecutor told the court.

He said that the brothers shared a residence and Divey was in the habit of provoking Timmy and other villagers.

Maitland said the evidence suggests that people were afraid of Divey, adding that it was implied that Divey behaved as he did “because of a particular issue that he struggled with”.

The prosecutor told the court that a death occurred and thus attracted the highest level of consequence. He, however, said that the Crown fully accepted that there was extreme provocation in the case.

The prosecution said that while Williams was charged with manslaughter by an unlawful act, there were also extreme instances of provocation.

He pointed the court to cases that address provocation.

Maitland said that on the date in question, Timmy and his girlfriend were hanging out in his bedroom when Divey came across and started to throw things in the yard.

Divey was armed with a cutlass.

Timmy, on hearing the raucous, went outside his section to see what was happening.

Divey chopped him at least twice, the prosecutor said, adding that while Timmy had other injuries, there were two severe chop wounds.

Maitland said that one of the chops was to Timmy’s right shoulder, adding that the court could come to its own conclusion about where that chop was aimed.

Timmy also received a chop to the right foot.

Maitland said that almost immediately and while Divey was proceeding back to his section, Timmy took a cutlass from behind a speaker box and chopped his brother twice.

Timmy then went to seek medical attention, but Divey refused to do so, even after their mother, Eva Williams, urged him to do so.

Divey remained at home, where his mother heard him groaning and he was found dead the following day.

Maitland said that Divey was obviously the aggressor.

He referred the court to the case of the DPP v. Elvis Richardson, out of St. Kitts and Nevis, where the court held that a suspended sentence may be given in exceptional circumstances.

Maitland said the court said that a suspended sentence is not to be regarded as a soft option, because it hangs like a sword of Damocles over the head of any person on whom it is handed down.

The prosecutor said that the defendant was a man of good character.

He said that while there was no social inquiry report in the case, the evidence on file said he was not a problematic character, was helpful in the community, never got himself in trouble with the law and was an upstanding citizen.

The prosecutor also cited the case of the Queen v. Lavina Charles, a St. Lucia case, in which the court said that post-offence behaviour should be considered, including remaining at the scene.

Maitland said that after seeking medical attention and being treated, Timmy returned to the scene and assisted the authorities.

He also cited the case of the Queen v. Brian Walter where the court speaks about the virtues of justice and mercy.

“This is an instance where a mother has already lost one son,” Maitland said.

“And, if it is that Mr. Timmy Williams is in fact incarcerated, she would in effect be losing another son,” the prosecutor said.

He said the nature of the injuries that Divey inflicted on Timmy could have been life-threatening.

“And I would suggest the only difference is that his brother did not take himself to seek medical attention…

“The Crown believes that based on the medical injury form and the post mortem form, the deceased would have survived had he sought medical attention. The Crown does not object to a suspended sentence,” Maitland said.

In response, Timmy’s lawyer, Carl Williams, told the court that he was “in total agreement with the prosecution’s submission.

“This is a case where a suspended sentence can be imposed,” the defence counsel said.

Justice Rickie Burnett will sentence Williams on June 14.