Duo gets additional jail time for Canouan manslaughter

TWO YOUNG MEN will be further incarcerated for three years and 11 months for their hand in a 2013 killing in Canouan.

Donrick Richards and Imo Miller, who have already been in jail for just over five years, were sentenced at the High Court recently, after pleading guilty to manslaughter on December 3, 2018.

The two were accepted to have killed Horsand Glasgow, a resident of Redemption Sharpes, who had been living and working in Canouan, by their violent actions on November 1, 2013 which led to Glasgow’s death in the wee hours of the following day.

Prosecutor Tammika McKenzie read the agreed facts of what had happened that night to Justice Brian Cottle, before the prisoners were sentenced.

Glasgow was apparently on his porch resting on the night, close to midnight, while his girlfriend slept inside the apartment. His girlfriend was awoken by him crying out and stumbling into the bedroom covered in blood, and looking outside, she appeared to see persons running away. She recognized Richards among them. After Glasgow collapsed, persons in the village assisted his girlfriend in taking him to a clinic, but he was pronounced dead early at 1:15 am on November 2.

Four men were picked up in suspicion of the murder, and electronically interviewed by the police. Richards informed that he had been attacked by the deceased and nine other guys earlier that day and stabbed in his left shoulder. He said that his friends advised him to “roll back” on the group responsible, but he said that Miller was the one with the cutlass and that he was the one who planned Glasgow repeatedly, and all others were empty handed.

Miller denied this, and said that while he attempted to plan Glasgow, but he never did, and said that Richards was the one who did the ‘planning.’ In a second interview, Richards said he lied and admitted to planning the deceased with the cutlass five times.

The two other men who were arrested claimed that they came along but did nothing but observe.

Defence attorney Jomo Thomas represented Richards, and he highlighted the fact that Richards had been attacked earlier during that day.

“He after that went to the police and made a report. Up to that point Richards had done literally everything right, he went to the hospital, he went to the police…,” before submitting to the encouragement of his friends, Thomas posited.

He continued that his client had admitted to planning and not chopping Glasgow five times, “he had no intention to kill or to cause any serious injury.”

The lawyer stated that the autopsy report showed that there were wounds which were 2.5cm and 1.5cm, that were seemingly slight.

The wound which caused the death was determined to be a 6cm stab wound to the left thigh.

In light of the injuries, Thomas noted, “I am submitting, that Mr Richards may correctly say that what he intended to do was to plan, to hit, to strike, but not to chop.”

He later stated, “Clearly society has to call people to account for their actions, and certainly Mr Richards would undoubtedly have to bear the consequence of the act,” but he put forward that his client was a good candidate for rehabilitation.

Attorney Ronald Marks who represented Miller, said that he was joining hands with the submissions of Thomas.

He explained that his client was present on the principle of joint enterprise, and that “he didn’t raise a hand but he was part of the enterprise and admitted so Mi’Lord.”

“This is an example of where a foolish decision can find you and make you end up in some very hot water Mi’Lord…I am certain that now, with the benefit of hindsight, that they would have acted differently,” the lawyer continued, saying that his clients were remorseful.

Marks also submitted that there was evidence that the deceased was not a saint, and that there was also evidence of provocation.

“My Lord we must remember too that the virtual complainant in this matter had his part to play and there was provocation in the ordinary meaning of the word,” he noted.

Justice Cottle began, “I note that at the time of the offence you were both young men, one 22, the other 25 at the time, and that you have no previous convictions.”

Some aggravating features were the use of a weapon, that it was a group attack, and that there was a degree of planning.

He levelled, “Mr Marks has said there was provocation, although not in the legal sense…that also indicates, there was retaliation, you decided that you would take the law into your own hands and react in a way not contemplated for by the law.”

The final sentence of the court after the subtraction of mitigating features and adding of aggravating features was nine years each, time on remand to be subtracted.

“You are still relatively young men, with a lot of your life ahead of you, I hoped that you learned from this experience. There is nothing that can bring back the life that you have taken…” Cottle told the two.