The Editor, Sir:

Kindly allow me to respond to an article published on April 10 by Rev. Devon Dick, in which he made some comments about a suspended sentence handed down by the learned trial judge in a case of carnal abuse. Since it is the convention that the judiciary does not respond to public comments, I thought it would be prudent to make some comments since I was the attorney who represented the accused.

By law, a trial judge is required to approach sentencing with four classical principles in mind: deterrence, retribution, prosecution and rehabilitation. More importantly, when considering which of these principles are to be given relatively greater weight, the judge must always impose a sentence appropriate to the offender as well as other considerations. So for example, if Rev. Dick were found guilty of a crime (very unlikely though it is), he would expect that his years of seriously beneficial service to Jamaica at different levels, his known steadiness of Christian purpose and all his other characteristics would be taken into account, irrespective of what the crime is. He ought not to expect that any judge will ignore all these things just because the crime is frowned upon.

Several cogent witnesses

In the matter on which he based his article, there were several cogent witnesses as to the character of the young man. There was also a very exhaustive probation report from officers of the Probation Department which brought to the attention of the judge the views of the communities of the respective parties, the family of the complainant and all relevant information for a fair and balanced enquiry into the matter before sentence was passed. It should also be noted that the Probation Department made a recommendation about sentencing which the judge took into consideration in deciding what sentence to pass. The Probation Department is a highly trained group of social workers which, in serving the court, raises every issue of relevance in their reports.

In my view, the judge took great care to provide herself with every item of available information before she made her decision. My client is left with a conviction. That in itself has consequences for him. Though I might not agree with the jury's verdict, the trial judge cannot be faulted for the thoroughness of her approach, and the decision, given the facts before the court.

Many cases are tried

I cannot agree with your columnist that "the country, through that judgement, is not taking paedophiles seriously." Many cases of sexual offences are tried in circuit courts in Jamaica, and as far as I know, many defendants havebeen found guilty and given custodial sentences. Any lawyer at the Criminal Bar can attest to juries returning guilty verdicts in matters which they have appeared. How does this one example produce such a sweeping generality?

Most lawyers are quite willing to answer questions or serious enquiries from journalists or columnists about legal principles or the facts about cases in which they appear. It is not enough for commentators like Rev. Dick to read a report - which incidentally contained several inaccuracies of fact - and then simply apply a general view about the subject, which is uninformed and unhelpful.

I am, etc.,

GLADSTONE WILSON

Attorney-at-Law