Two brothers from Byera have been spared immediate jail over a cutlass attack on a man hours after an altercation involving the man and one of them.
Neron Joseph and Bernard Joseph were sentenced on Dec. 19 for unlawfully and maliciously wounding Deron Franklyn, of Dickson Village, in Georgetown on Oct. 29, 2021.
They were found guilty after a trial before Justice Rickie Burnett at High Court No. 2.
The judge bonded each of the men for three years in the sum of EC$10,000. If either of them breaches the bond, he must pay the sum forthwith or go to prison for three years.
Further, they were each ordered to compensate Franklyn EC$6,000 by July 31, 2025, or spend one year in prison.
The material facts, as summarised by the judge, are that on Oct. 29, 2021, between 6:30 and 8 a.m., there was an incident involving Bernard Joseph and the virtual complainant (VC) in which Joseph was injured.
The matter was reported to the police and Joseph was given medical injury forms to visit the doctor.
About 10 a.m. the same day, Franklyn was granted time to visit the ATM at the Bank of St. Vincent and the Grenadines in Georgetown.
However, the ATM was out of order and he stood outside the bank waiting to see if the machine would come back online.
While standing outside the ATM, Franklyn saw the Joseph brothers running towards him, each of them with cutlasses in his hand.
Both men began to swing their cutlasses while stating that they would kill Franklyn.
The VC ran in the direction of Ferdie’s Footsteps, with the Joseph brothers chasing after him.
They caught up with the VC, who held on to Neron’s cutlass and started to wrestle with him.
Bernard then began chopping the VC, who later managed to get away and ran to the hospital in Georgetown.
The brothers initially continued to chase the VC but eventually stopped their pursuit. They left the scene and disposed of their weapons. The police received reports of the altercation and saw the Joseph brothers walking along the road with blood dripping from a bandaged injury Bernard had.
The police officers inquired and the brothers told them that one of them had gotten into an altercation earlier with a man, and they had “rounds” back for him.
Bernard was treated for his injuries at the hospital and the police issued him a medical injury form.
The police cautioned and interviewed each of the brothers on Nov. 1, 2021, and later charged them with wounding with intent.
The men face a maximum of life imprisonment for their crime.
Franklyn’s injuries included a 6 cm long and 1 cm deep laceration to the forehead. He also suffered a 6 cm laceration to the right mid-arm, a 5 cm laceration to the right forearm, a 1 cm laceration to the ring finger and an extensive laceration to the posterior aspect of the entire left arm.
The medical report said that if the injury along the posterior aspect of the right arm was not treated, Franklyn could have gone into shock and died.
In the victim impact statement, Franklyn said that his life had changed in a split-second right before his eyes.
“I am still struggling to understand why I was the victim of such a gruesome attack,” he said, adding that he has had problems sleeping after the incident.
“It affected me greatly to the point where I even checked myself out of the Georgetown Hospital, jeopardising my health because I feared for my life.”
He said the wounds to the head and left hand still affect him.
“My left hand received the largest wound. Some days, my hand would cramp me so bad that I am unable to move it.”
In determining the sentence, the court held that there was a level of planning and premeditation that could be deemed a group attack.
Weapons were used and for this, the judge placed the crime at level 1 high.
Justice Burnett established a starting point of 60% of the maximum of 30 years — 18 years.
The judge also evaluated the aggravating and mitigating features of the case and each defendant.
As regards the aggravating features, he held that the attack was motivated by revenge, attempts were made to dispose of the weapons and the offence took place in public.
A mitigating feature was that there was some element of provocation in light of the incident between the VC and Bernard earlier that same morning.
As regards Bernard, there were no mitigating features and an aggravating feature was that he had a conviction after the wounding charge.
As regards Neron, there were no aggravating features and his good character was a mitigating feature.
A social inquiry report found that the defendants live with their mother and stepfather. They each dropped out of school in Form 2 because of their family’s economic circumstances.
Neron was employed in Canouan before returning to St. Vincent, where he worked as a minibus conductor for over 10 years.
His mother described him as jovial, friendly and not troublesome. She said he helped her out during her illness — washing and cooking for her.
Neron said he felt bad about the incident and wished for a second chance.
All the people who the social worker interviewed spoke well of him
Bernard has a 10-year-old child and works at a tyre repair/mechanic shop in Georgetown.
He told the social worker he works hard and tries to live a peaceful life with people and the attack was one of self-defence in that the VC had attacked him at his workplace.
Bernard further said he felt “a way” (remorseful) about the incident because it was not supposed to happen that way.
The six people in Bernard’s community who the social worker interviewed described him as “a good boy”, “not troublesome”, “a peaceful person”, “hardworking” and “a reliable help to his mother”.
Prison authorities said the brothers were compliant with the prison rules.
Meanwhile, Franklyn told the social workers that he would like compensation for his injuries as sending the brothers to prison would not make sense to him.
Asked what justice would look like in the matter, he Frankly said financial compensation.
The views of the community were all along the same lines.
In deciding to order compensation, Justice Burnett said restorative justice mandates the court to look at the harmful impact of the crime and determine what can be done to repair the harm while holding the brothers accountable for their actions.
He said the court was of the view that the victim should be given a role in the sentencing process, noting that the VC was asking the court to consider some sort of restitution.
In light of this, the court departed from the sentencing guidelines, ordered compensation and imposed a ban.
Carl Williams represented the defendants.