By Ronalda Luke
A familiar face to the Court, Prisma Joseph of River Street, Roseau, has been sentenced to one year and nine months in prison following his sixth conviction for deception.
On February 9, 2024, Joseph pleaded guilty to deception and appeared before High Court Judge, Justice Colin Williams today, February 23, 2024, for sentencing. The indictment stated that between June 16, 2014, and July 17, 2014, at Roseau, Joseph dishonestly obtained from Clement Royer the sum of EC18,000.00 to permanently deprive Royer of the said amount by falsely representing that he was the owner of a piece of land located at Union Estate in Pointe Michel.
Facts
According to the facts of the case, Clement Royer, the owner of Maxroy Trading, was in Roseau on June 16, 2014, when he was approached by Joseph, who offered to sell a piece of land to him. The men then went to Pointe Michel, where Joseph showed Royer the boundaries of the land. When Royer inquired about the certificate of title for the property, Joseph informed him that the title was “in process” and requested a deposit of $7,500.00 to give to the attorney.
Thereafter, on four separate occasions, Royer withdrew cash and handed it to Joseph but never received a written document or receipt. On June 20, 2014, Joseph again requested $4,000.00 to pay the attorney for the title, which he stated would be available in three weeks. Joseph told Royer that the said land was valued at $25,000.00.
On July 3, 2014, the defendant told the Virtual Complainant that the attorney had to travel because of an emergency, but a further payment of $5,000.00 was required which was paid to Joseph. On July 17, Joseph informed Royer that the title of the land was ready but he needed another $5,000.00 which was paid to him.
Over the next couple of days that followed, Royer made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Joseph. Two years later, on August 11, 2016, the matter was reported to the police. Joseph was subsequently arrested and charged with deception and remanded in custody for one month until he was granted bail.
Plea in mitigation
In his plea in mitigation to the Court, defense attorney Darius Jones noted that Joseph entered an early guilty plea and expressed profound remorse. The attorney suggested that a non-custodial sentence should be imposed, emphasizing that Joseph should be allowed to make amends and compensate Royer.
However, in a state-induced victim impact statement, Royer declared that in 2014, his business suffered due to the defendant’s actions, as money was withdrawn from his business account to pay Joseph. Royer further asserted that he currently had no interest in recovering the cash from Joseph, stating that despite several opportunities given to the defendant to pay the fine, he failed to do so and did not fulfill any promises to repay.
Sentence
In delivering his decision, Justice Colin Willimas stated he had no reason to deviate from the Eastern Caribbean Sentencing Guidelines for fraud. The initial step in constructing the sentence was to establish a starting point, which the Court set at two years, constituting 20% of the maximum sentence of 10 years.
The Court considered the seriousness of the offense by looking at Joseph’s culpability and on the other hand the consequence of the offense by reference to the harm caused. Justice Williams further asserted that this offense falls within the range of category three, and level B-medium, as he acknowledged that there was some degree of planning involved in the offense.
As for the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offense, the Court found none. However, about the offender, the Court identified an aggravating factor: Joseph had an established record for the offense of deception dating back to 1991, with five other convictions for deception. Additionally, apart from deception offenses, Joseph also has other convictions that range from battery on police, malicious damage, wounding, and conspiracy.
There were no mitigating factors in Joseph’s favour Justice Williams said. At the time of the offense, he was not of good character, nor was he young or lacking maturity, as he was 45 years old. Additionally, there was nothing to support his attorney’s claims of remorse, as he did not assist the police. He further averred that there is nothing to suggest that Joseph is a good prospect for rehabilitation, given that he has committed similar crimes for three decades.
Given these circumstances an additional one year was added to his sentence which then stood at 3 years.
At the next stage of constructing the sentence, the Court considered Joseph’s guilty plea. Justice Williams noted that the guilty plea came on the eve of the trial after a jury was impaneled and all arrangements were in place for a trial. Therefore, a discount of 11 months was considered appropriate. The Court also awarded another discount of one month for time spent on remand which reduced the sentence to two years.
Although the defense counsel did not submit that the delay in the trial was unreasonable or that the proceedings after 10 years constituted an abuse of process, Justice Williams posited that the delay in this matter was “scandalous or embarrassing.”
“The taking of evidence from only two witnesses in the committal proceedings of this matter took one year and five months,” Justice Williams voiced. “The time that elapsed from the date of the defendant’s arrest and the charge for the offense and when he was committed was roughly seven and a half years. It was also noted that the time between the commission of the offense and the report to the police was a little more than two years. The matter therefore got to the High Court nine and a half years after the incident.”
He said such delays, can and do have a deleterious effect on the rule of law.
“The delay between Mr. Joseph’s arrest and getting the matter to trial appears based on what is disclosed in the deposition to be solely attributable to the functionaries of the State. To do nothing about this unbecoming conduct would be to give silent approval to the transgression.”
As a result, His Lordship was of the view that the defendant ought to be given some remedy when the State is delinquent with a matter. Consequently, the Court determined the appropriate remedy to be a 1/8 reduction of the sentence. Three months was therefore subtracted from the remaining two-year prison sentence.
“Prisma Joseph, for the offense of deception for which you pleaded guilty to obtaining $18,000.00 of the property of Mr Clement Royer, to permanently deprive him of his property, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year and nine months with effect from 9th February 2024,” Justice Williams stated.
With his head hung low and his gaze fixed on the floor, Joseph silently exited the Court, escorted by the police on his way to serve his sentence at the Dominica State Prison.
Embarrassing that this took 10 years to get to court. Madness!