The Court of Appeal has upheld a prison sentence of 10 years and six months for Kasnique Cupid who was the “mastermind” behind an armed robbery of the liquor store where she worked.
Appearing before the Court of Appeal on Friday, 10 Nov., Cupid sat in the dock with her head down, silently wiping her tears, as her attorney Jonathon Hughes requested her sentence be reduced because it was “manifestly excessive”.
According to Hughes, Justice Marva McDonald-Bishop, who had presided over the judge-alone trial in which Cupid was convicted, misdirected herself when determining her sentence in June 2022.
When deciding on a sentence, judges, with the assistance of prosecution and defence counsel, seek to place the type of offence in one of three categories – A, B or C, with A being the worst type of offence.
An example of a Class A robbery might include the use of a weapon, such as a gun being fired during the commission of the offence and a victim receiving injuries; while a Class B robbery might include a knife or another object being used as a weapon, and there are no injuries.
Once a category has been decided, the next task is to identify the defendant’s culpability – which is governed by the defendant’s role in the crime, and/or evidence of their intentions, such as previous planning and/or activities to conceal their wrongdoing thereafter.
When combined, the category and culpability help the judge to arrive at a starting point for sentencing. The sentence is determined by other mitigating or aggravating factors.
In Cupid’s case, the factors that were used against her were her role as the organiser or “mastermind” of the February 2020 robbery, her detailed knowledge of the business, and where the cash was being kept.
“The sentencing judge had only one option and that was to use the circumstances to either arrive at the starting point or use them to elevate or decrease the sentence but not both,” said Hughes. “And during her oral judgment, it was clear that these factors were used to arrive at the starting point and from there to elevate them.”
Hughes also argued that Cupid was not the “mastermind”, and rather played a much smaller role as the getaway driver. In addition, he said, she was the sole breadwinner of her home with her husband and three children, one of whom has special needs.
The judges dismissed the appeal, claiming that Justice McDonald-Bishop was right to have concluded that Cupid was the “mastermind” of the robbery and they determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
Cupid’s co-defendant, Richard Nash, who also appeared before the Court of Appeal to have his sentence reduced did not have his matter heard because he did not have legal representation on the day of the hearing.
A third man who was also involved in the robbery was never identified.
Related Videos
