R v Deshawn Corbett

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Judge: Moise, J.
• Judgment Date: 16 July 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J0716-2
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. AXAHCR2025/0008
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
• Year: 2025

Between

Rex

and

Deshawn Corbett

Defendant

[2025] ECSC J0716-2

Before:

His Lordship The Honourable Justice Ermin Moise

CLAIM NO. AXAHCR2025/0008

EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CRIMINAL)

Appearances:

Ms. Erica Edwards for the Crown.

Mr. Devin Hodge for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT ON SENTENCING

Moise, J.

1 This is the court's decision on sentencing. The defendant (Mr. Corbett) pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm and one count of possession of ammunition. The court ordered a Pre-Sentence Report which was provided by the Department of Probation. Counsel for the Crown and defence have both addressed the court on the appropriate sentence to be imposed.

The Facts

2 On 19 ^th March 2024 officers of the Royal Anguilla Police Force executed a search warrant on Mr. Corbett's home. At the time of the execution of the warrant, Mr. Corbett and his father were present at the residence. They were cautioned and during a search of the premises the police recovered a 23 Glock .40 S&W caliber semi-auto handgun with serial number XXZ427 on the slide and serial number on the barrel CPU265. The police also recovered a magazine with twelve (12) .40 S&W caliber rounds attached to it. Both the firearm and the magazine were recovered in a toilet tank at the residence.

3 According to the evidence presented, upon recovery of the firearm and ammunition Mr. Corbett was cautioned and he stated “It's mine but not really mine, but I'm holding it for somebody, but I can't say who. I not getting involved in that.” Mr. Corbett was arrested and taken into custody. He was interviewed by the police, and he stated that he was in possession of this firearm for one week as he was given the firearm by an individual “to hold”. He also admitted that he was not the holder of a valid firearms licence. The firearm and ammunition were examined by a ballistics expert. The court is satisfied that the items recovered from Mr. Corbett's residence fall within the definition of the Firearms Act. Mr. Corbett was remanded into custody and subsequently pleaded guilty to both counts on the indictment.

The Pre-Sentence Report

4 It is noted that Mr. Corbett was 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offence. He has no previous convictions. In summary, the PSR indicates that he has strong family ties and is not known to be involved in gangs and, according to his mother, purchased a video game in order to ensure that he would spend more time at home prior to his arrest. The report suggests that at some point in his youth, Mr. Corbett's parents broke up. The home became somewhat disruptive, and this had an impact on him.

5 Mr. Corbett has had regular visits by his sisters whilst in prison. The report from prison personnel indicates that he has been cooperative and there is no evidence of bad or inappropriate behaviour whilst in prison. Inquiries of persons within the community of South Hill where Mr. Corbett resides, reveal that he is not known to be a troublemaker and largely keeps to himself.

6 Mr. Corbett attended the Albena Lake-Hodge Comprehensive School, from where he was suspended in his final year. He completed his secondary education in a private institution. Mr. Corbett also worked as a fisherman since leaving school, earning himself an average of $1,500.00 United States Dollars (USD) per month.

7 The authors of the PSR concluded that Mr. Corbett poses a low to medium risk of reoffending, a low risk of harm to others and a low risk of harm to himself.

The Law on Sentencing

8 According to section 50 of the Firearms Act1 the penalty for possession of a firearm and ammunition without a valid licence upon indictment is a fine or imprisonment for a period of 14 years, or to both. In a more recent amendment to the Firearms Act the legislature in Anguilla has introduced a mandatory minimum sentence for firearm possession. In particular, section 2 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 2024 introduces an amendment to section 49 of the Act and, by virtue of subsection (4), introduces a minimum sentence of 7 years imprisonment for the offences for which Mr. Corbett has pleaded guilty. However, the Act goes on to state in section 7 that “[w]here a person who is 18 years or older commits an offence under sections 10 (3) to (6), 11, 20, 21 or 22 and such person has no previous convictions, the court may determine that the mandatory sentence specified in subsections (4) and (5) of this section shall not be imposed and the court shall impose an appropriate sentence in accordance with the aforementioned sections.”

9 In accordance with the changes to the legislation, a minimum sentence of 7 years should be imposed on Mr. Corbett. However, given that at the time of the offence he was 18 years old and has no previous convictions, the law gives a discretion to the court as to whether the minimum sentence should be imposed. The legislation does not go on to set any criteria which the court should use in the exercise of this discretion. This is therefore a matter for the court to determine. In doing so the court will consider the aggravating and mitigating factors as outlined in the sentencing guidelines of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court.

10 I am satisfied that the offences in this case fall within category 3 of the sentencing guidelines. The firearm, as well as the ammunition, was concealed in a toilet tank at Mr. Corbett's home and the ammunition was not found in the firearm.

11 I am of the view that the level of seriousness of the offence is category B. The firearm was found with 12 rounds of live ammunition in the vicinity. Although the ammunition was not in the firearm, this is a factor which falls to be considered under level B. Therefore, the starting point in sentencing is 5 years and 6 months with a range of 3 years and 6 months to 7 years and 8 months.

12 The court does not consider that there are additional aggravating or mitigating factors in relation to the offence to be considered. As it relates to the offender, I consider that there are no additional aggravating factors. In mitigation I consider that Mr. Corbett has no previous convictions. He has strong family ties and is not known to be a troublemaker in the community. As it relates to Mr. Corbett's youth, I note that the guidelines require that the court takes youth into consideration where it explains the offending. There is nothing here to suggest that Mr. Corbett's age of 18 years at the time of the offence provides any explanation for the offence of possession of a firearm. I note that he stated to the police that he was merely holding the firearm and didn't go on to explain for whom and under what circumstances he did so. I do not consider this to be mitigating. Possession of a firearm with 12 rounds of ammunition is not a matter to be taken lightly. I have also given full consideration to the submissions of counsel for Mr. Corbett in mitigation.

13 In the circumstances I would consider an appropriate sentence in this case to be 4 years and 6 months in prison. I would reduce the sentence by one-third on account of the guilty plea and impose a sentence of 3 years in prison. It is important therefore to consider the minimum sentence of 7 years required by the legislation. Given that Mr. Corbett was 18 at the time of the offence, there is a discretion to impose a sentence which is lower than the minimum. The question is what is the criteria for doing so? The legislature must have intended to provide for some measure of leniency for first time offenders unless there is some aggravating feature about the offence which warrants the minimum sentence. In the circumstances of this case, where there are no aggravating factors pertaining to the offence or the offender. I find this to be an appropriate case for the defendant to be sentenced within the guidelines and outside of the minimum of 7 years. I therefore sentence Mr. Corbett to 3 years in prison. The question is how to treat the time which he has spent on remand.

Time on Remand

14 The footnote to the sentencing guidelines states that the judge will declare the precise time spent on remand which is to be credited to the sentence passed and it is for the prison to calculate the earliest date of release taking into account the time on remand. This issue has, however, been the subject of some judicial debate and it is important for this court to express its own views on the applicable approach to be taken in Anguilla.

15 In the recent decision of Omari Phillips v. The King2, the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court came to consider the issue of time on remand in judicial sentencing. After citing the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Callachand v The State3 and that of the Caribbean Court of Justice in Da Costa Hall v. The Queen4., the Court of Appeal concluded that:

Accordingly, it should be clearly understood that the appropriate sentence I would have imposed on the appellant for manslaughter would have been 19 years imprisonment, but as he has already served four thousand, six hundred and four days (4604) or twelve years, seven months and seven days in custody I deduct that period, so that the sentence I pass is six years, five months 23 days.

16 In that case, the Court of Appeal proceeded to impose and declare...