Two men who robbed and repeatedly beat another man in Southwood in November 2021 have been jailed but will serve two years less because of their age.
The men, Jeffrey Mofford, 30, and Calford Thomas, 25, will serve 3 years and 23 days and five years, seven months and six days in prison, respectively
They had sought a sentence indication and after hearing the maximum sentence the court would impose, they asked that the charge be put to them again and they pleaded guilty to robbery.
Justice Brian Cottle ordered social inquiry reports on each of the defendants ahead of their July 22 sentencing.
Lawyer Duane Daniel who represented the men, amicus, had asked the court to impose suspended sentences.
The facts are that the virtual complainant (VC), Jerry Grant, 48, left his sister’s shop about 1:10 a.m. on Nov. 6, 2021.
Grant was walking along the road to his home in Southwood when he heard a sound.
When the VC looked back, he saw Mofford and Thomas running towards him.
Grant kept walking and Mofford and Thomas caught up to him and began beating him with their hands.
Mofford restrained Grant while Thomas removed cash from his pocket.
The VC struggled and fell to the ground and Mofford and Thomas dragged and kicked him and searched him again before leaving.
Grant dragged himself to a lighted veranda of a nearby house and Mofford and Thomas returned and continued to beat him.
The VC escaped by slipping out of his shirt and running away.
He cried loudly for help and the duo retreated.
Grant collapsed and lost consciousness. When he came to, he went to the police and reported the assault.
The police conducted an investigation and arrested both prisoners, who confessed their guilt.
The police were told that there had been an altercation earlier during the night of the robbery where the VC had been involved in a physical struggle with another man.
Mofford had intervened and struck the VC with a piece of wood.
Thrown out at 15
The social inquiry reports showed that Mofford has a 2-year-old son. The defendant grew up with his grandma at Glen and later at Enhams with his father.
When Mofford was 15, he was asked to leave home and he went on to live with a woman who took him in. He dropped out of secondary school at form 4 and began working.
He first worked as a butcher’s apprentice then as a van conductor. He later sold breadfruit and other staples and washed vehicles, earning about EC$300 a week.
Mofford writes music in his spare time, dances and was training to be a DJ. He also enjoys drawing and sketching.
He has no history of similar behaviour and since his incarceration, had displayed model behaviour and the prison authorities view him as a very good inmate.
His community had nothing negative to say about him. It was felt that the community would welcome his return.
Residents thought the offence was out of character and it elicited universal surprise among the community.
The social worker interviewed Mofford’s family, friends and other people in the community who were of the view that Mofford was an excellent prospect for rehabilitation.
Justice Cottle also noted that Mofford expressed remorse to the court and apologised to the VC.
Thomas grew up in church but went ‘down a dangerous path’
The judge noted that Thomas was even younger at the time of the offence.
The presentencing report said his secondary schooling ended at form 3 at which point he was beginning to engage in antisocial behaviour, smoking heavily and gambling frequently.
The report said that Thomas, who has three children, had no father figure in his upbringing.
He operated as a minivan conductor and has five previous convictions before the magistrate court, where he was fined or bonded.
Before incarceration on the robbery conviction, Thomas had not been sentenced to any prolonged period of confinement.
The social worker interviewed Thomas’ mother who said he had been raised to attend church but departed that guidance as a teen and fell in with bad company.
This led him down a dangerous path, the mother said.
The social worker interviewed members of Thomas’ community, all of whom viewed him as dishonest and prone to violence. None of them were surprised that he was involved in such a crime.
VC suffered minor physical, psychological injury
Justice Cottle noted that the maximum sentence for robbery is life imprisonment, a notional sentence of 30 years.
He said Grant suffered minor physical injury and minor psychological harm. The robbery was a group attack in which Mofford and Thomas each played a leading role.
It followed an earlier incident in which Mofford had attacked and struck Grant.
The judge established a starting sentence of 10 years — one-third of the maximum.
An aggravating feature of the offence was that robbery is becoming far too prevalent.
Justice Cottle said statistics from 2021 and 2022 show an increase from 37 to 56 reports of robbery year-on-year.
He saw no mitigating features of the offence.
In the case of Mofford, there were no aggravating factors. However, in the case of Thomas, he had three previous convictions for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one for possession of an offensive weapon.
The court found nothing mitigating of Thomas.
On the other hand, Mofford was of previously good character in that he had no convictions.
He was still relatively young and assisted police in recovering the stolen property.
The court held that for Thomas, the aggravating features outweighed mitigating but the reverse was the case with Mofford.
Regarding Mofford, the court moved downwards by two years taking the sentence to 8 years and upwards for Thomas, taking it to 12 years.
The court granted the full one-third discount for the early guilty plea, which moved Thomas’ sentence to eight years and Mofford’s to five years and four months.
Mofford had spent three months and seven days on remand and Thomas four months and 24 days.
The judge said that if the guidelines were strictly applied, this would have meant that Mofford would have had to serve a further 5 years and 23 days in prison and Thomas, seven years, seven months and six days.
Justice Cottle, however, noted that the court is allowed to depart from the sentencing guidelines when strict application will lead to injustice.
He noted that Daniel had asked for a suspended sentence.
The judge, however, said that having considered all the factors in the practice direction he would not order that the sentences be suspended.
Justice Cottle, however, further reduced the sentences by two years because the defendants are both still relatively young and the court hoped they would use the time to reflect on whether they want to continue on the path they have been threading.
Assistant Director of Public Prosecution Karim Nelson represented the Crown.
The judges in SVG are encouraging more criminal action by these puppy sentences schemes. The lawyers and criminals know how to evade sentencing. Please stop this nonsense and jail these criminals with more years so they don’t come out and do the same thing again. You are not protecting the people of SVG. How can anyone refer to these criminals’ young robbers. Their actions show they are adults and should have nothing to do with the number of years they have to serve in jail.