The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) can appeal the sentence handed down to Trafficking in Persons (TIP) convict Joyce Lawrence but has to do so within 14 days.
Lawrence was on September 5 ordered to pay restitution to the victim and a fine for the two TIP offences instead of the mandatory jail time.
Based on what Stabroek News was told yesterday, the law gives the DPP 14 days to appeal sentences. This newspaper was unable to ascertain if an appeal of Lawrence’s sentence was filed or if the DPP’s chambers was moving to do so.
Government’s Ministerial Task Force on TIP has said that Lawrence should have faced mandatory jail time in addition to the order of restitution and the fine handed down by Chief Magistrate Ann McLennan.
Lawrence, of Plantation Grove, was convicted of trafficking a sixteen-year-old female for labour exploitation and unlawfully withholding an identification document. The sentence in relation to the TIP charge was an order by the court to pay $884,000 as restitution to the victim or face 12 months imprisonment. Lawrence was also fined $50,000 on the charge of unlawfully withholding the identification document with an alternative of eight weeks in prison.
A legal source explained to this newspaper that this deviation is more common in narcotics related convictions. In such instances, the DPP would appeal, leaving it up to the Court of Appeal to decide on whether there should be a retrial or institution of the mandatory jail time.
The Task Force said it was pleased that the prosecution was successful in establishing a case beyond a reasonable doubt against the perpetrator of the crime, and that a conviction was secured. However, it noted that both sentences were non-custodial whereas the penalties in the law specify mandatory terms of imprisonment on summary conviction for these offences.
The Task Force, in response to the sentencing, said that it acknowledges that the Chief Magistrate would have considered the details of the case in a manner deemed as just and suitable and that there are fundamental differences between labour exploitation and sexual exploitation.
“However, the concern of the Task Force is concentrated on the precedent that the decision to not have the perpetrator serve mandatory jail time would set, especially given that the survivor was a minor. It is of utmost importance that offenders are dealt with in such a manner that it will serve as a strong deterrent to other potential perpetrators, thus reducing incidence of these crimes in the future,” the Task Force asserted in a statement.
It was noted by the Legal Issues Sub-Committee of the Task Force that Section 3. (1) of the Combating Trafficking in Persons Act, No. 2 of 2005 mandates that “Whoever engages in or conspires to engage in, or attempts to engage in, or assist another person to engage in or organizes or directs other persons to engage in “trafficking in persons” shall – (i) on summary conviction (a) be sentenced to not less than three years nor more than five years imprisonment; (b) be subject to forfeiture of property under section 7; and (c) be ordered to pay full restitution to the trafficked person or persons under section 6.”
Further, it says that Section 4 of the Combating Trafficking in Persons Act, No. 2 of 2005 states, “Any person who for the purpose of trafficking in persons, and acting or purporting to act as another person’s employer…knowingly procures, destroys, conceals, removes, confiscates, or possesses any passport, immigration document, whether actual or purported, belonging to another person commits an offence and shall on summary conviction be fined one million dollars together with imprisonment for not more than five years.”
It said it was clear from both of these sections of the law that imprisonment was mandated in addition to restitution and the fine.
The Task Force said that it does not seek to criticise officials regarding the carrying out of their functions, and recognises their commitment to the cause of eradicating trafficking in persons. It said that it is committed to working with the judicial and prosecutorial authorities to improve efforts in ensuring that penalties for human trafficking are commensurate with the offence committed and that they act as effective deterrents.
