After being sentenced to six months imprisonment, a man who pleaded guilty to burglary tried to persuade the court to suspend the sentence.
Carlos Armando Julian, 28, told Magistrate Grace Donalds he did not want to go to jail, he hadn’t been in problems for a while and he had a lot of work lined up right now.
Defence Attorney John Furniss earlier asked the court to consider a suspended sentence for the burglary and a financial penalty for an admitted assault on a police officer who had come to arrest Julian afterwards. He suggested that these sentences be imposed ‘rather than further taxing the prison’.
The attorney said Julian was likely to spend a lot of time at Central Police Station because of the state of the prison – an apparent reference to the number of persons being held there.
The magistrate said that should not be a reason to suspend a sentence. She said it would be wrong in principle to suspend a sentence for someone who had previous convictions for burglary and going equipped for stealing.
If some of the property stolen in this recent offence had been recovered, she could have considered the request, the magistrate indicated.
‘I can pay for it back,’ Julian told the court.
‘That’s not how it works,’ the magistrate replied.
She made the point again that overcrowding is not a reason to suspend a sentence. ‘Sentencing ought to be done on the basis of principle and not expediency,’ she said.
According to facts set out by Crown Counsel Tania Lobban, police received a report of the burglary on 18 June last year.
The complainant had got home from work around 3.30am and found the front door open, a dead bolt broken and a hammer on the floor.
The missing items were listed as US$250, CI$120 and jewellery. The charge detailed the jewellery as a gold necklace with diamonds, a gold necklace and a gold bracelet, but no value was specified.
Investigation led police to Julian and they arrested him on 1 August on suspicion of burglary. He resisted, saying he did not know what they were talking about. At the station, however, when details of the allegation were put to him, Julian admitted the offence.
He said he sold the jewellery and spent the money on food and clothes.
In court, Mr. Furniss explained that the defendant knew the occupant of the property. He knew that the occupant had abandoned it and had run away because police wanted him.
What Julian did not know was that the man’s girlfriend was still residing there. He went into the property thinking it was not occupied.
When police came to arrest Julian, he thought it was a mistake because of the amount of time that had passed. The defendant apologised to officers for his behaviour.
Mr. Furniss pointed out that Julian’s previous conviction for burglary could not have been serious, since the penalty imposed was a fine of $400.
The defendant told the court he went into the premises because the man owed him money.
The magistrate replied, ‘The law does not allow you to self-help in that way. You don’t take the law into your own hands.’
Related Videos
