A man, who confessed to chopping his woman with a machete was sentenced to 12 years in prison for the crime.
Conroy James pleaded guilty to wounding with intent after the start of his trial in the High Court on July 14.
The victim had already testified that the man chopped her in her face and other parts of her body after a dispute at their home in 2017.
A doctor testified the woman had with multiple injuries including a broken tooth and fractured bones in her face and hands.
He said while the injuries were not life-threatening the woman was in danger of losing her limbs.
In condemning the man actions, the judge said he would have imposed the maximum sentence of 15 years if James had not plead guilty to the offence.
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
The proud Knight Sir Paul Richards who still has a once popular song in his repertoire would probably conclude that is love he love her.
To this day the song is still in his repertoire. I trust that Sir Paul will move swiftly to remove such inhumane, violent song from his collection immediately.
This song is a disgrace to the title as Sir and reflects a broken society that award such song with the nation’s too honour..
Who will advocate…..
@Melchisedec, right there with you.
maybe he need fu get he penis chap with that same machete.
PUNISHMENT PHILOSOPHY OR JUDICIAL FALLACY
A ‘…Judicial Fallacy’ seemed to have crept into the ‘…Administration of Justice.’
The administration of justice has never been dependent upon how an accused person pleaded.
Judges know or reckless not to know, that when Indictments are read to an accused persons, they may opt for the ‘…constitutional presumption of innocence.’ Thus, an accused person may enter a ‘…Plea of Not Guilty.’
Today, Judges seemed to be placing their ‘…Punishment Philosophy’ on what is being seen as a ‘…Judicial Fallacy.’
Those, that buy into this ‘Fallacy,’ including some attorneys, are equally as gullible as the accused person.
Judges are really not doing any ‘…judicial favor’ to any accused who pleaded guilty.
Judges know, when there is a full trial and a prima facie case was made out and the accused was called upon to go on his defence, they are ‘…judicially-bound’ to read the rights to the accused person that he shall know he/she may;
(a) ‘…Give evidence on Oath and be cross-examined;
(b) …Make a Statement and cannot be cross-examined; or
(c) …Remain Silent.’
These alone shall show that Judges are doing no favor to any accused person.
Comments are closed.