Anthony Persaud, the youth who last month pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted murder, admitting that he had stabbed another man to the abdomen with a pair of scissors, has been sentenced to six years in prison.
At his arraignment three weeks ago, Persaud, 23, accepted that on March 22, 2016, he wounded Navindra Budhu with intent to kill him, but rejected the prosecution’s case that he tried to rob his victim.
Justice Brassington Reynolds had deferred sentencing for, among other things, a psychiatric evaluation to be conducted on the youngster who was adamant that he never tried to rob Budhu, but admitted inflicting injuries on the man although he had no prior connection to him.
In her testimony at the sentencing-hearing yesterday morning, Forensic Psychiatrist Dr. Meena Rajkumar said that while Persaud displayed tendencies towards impulsivity and paranoia, he exhibited no signs of perceptual disturbances suggestive of psychosis.
The doctor said he functioned at a “neurotic level” and described him as being fit to clearly and coherently respond to the court.
He was also described by Probation and Social Services Officer Anand Sharma as being coherent in their interview.
The probation officer, too, said that while Persaud admitted to him that he had stabbed the virtual complainant, he vigorously repudiated the State’s account of him attempting to rob Budhu.
Sharma said that when asked, Persaud told him that he had accidently rode into Budhu, who then accused him of trying to frisk his pockets.
Sharma said that according to Persaud, Budhu punched him in the face, and that was when he, (Persaud) whipped out a pair of scissors he had in his possession, and stabbed the young man six times.
The probation officer said that the young offender nevertheless seemed contrite about the injuries he inflicted on the complainant, and expressed the desire of having an opportunity to rehabilitate himself.
Though having initially accepted the guilty plea, Justice Reynolds registered the Court’s discomfort in moving ahead, given that Persaud had not unequivocally accepted the events as presented by the State.
The judge underscored that while Persaud accepted that he did stab the complainant, if his story were to be believed, then it would suggest that he had been acting in self-defence.
Justice Reynolds then sought to enquire from Persaud’s attorney, Teriq Mohammed, whether it was the case that his client was also disputing the prosecution’s facts that after having already rode pass Budhu, he (Persaud) turned around and headed towards the complainant.
Mohammed, in an impassioned response, said that he had received no instructions from his client so indicating, but said that Persaud was steadfastly adamant that he at no time tried to rob Budhu, and was so protesting.
After being given some time to privately consult with his client during the virtual hearing, however, Mohammed would then report to the court that his client was unequivocally accepting the facts as stated by the prosecution, and wished the proceedings to continue.
Justice Reynolds said that if that were the case, then the Court was much more comfortable moving ahead.
Called upon to make his plea in mitigation on behalf of his client, Mohammed begged the judge to be merciful to his client, who he said was then taking full responsibility for “everything.”
According to the lawyer, his client was not attempting to be tactful in rendering his plea, but was instead being “open, honest and frank” with the Court, taking full responsibility for all he had done.
Mohammed then submitted for the Court’s consideration that his client had not wasted judicial time, but rather had pleaded guilty at the first-given opportunity, and asked, too, that regard be given to his impulsivity, to which the doctor alluded.
He also asked that the report of good behaviour from the prison and the dire circumstances under which his client was raised, as revealed from the probation report, be considered in sentencing.
In his address, Persaud told his victim the he had no intention to do what he had done to him and was “very, very sorry for everything.”
He then sought the forgiveness of society, stating that he would like to be given a second chance at proving himself worthy, through making meaningful contributions upon his release from prison.
While Persaud begged for mercy, Budhu’s request of the Judge was to visit his attacker with the full force of the law.
In his moving address, he told the court that six years after, he is still gripped by fear, and trauma, with the constant flashbacks of the grim reality that he could just have simply lost his life.
“Every time I look at my scars, I become depressed and emotional,” Budhu said.
He shared that for weeks following his discharge from hospital, he was unable to bathe himself, and was dependent on his mother, on whom all that pressure rested as a single parent.
His “pain and suffering,” he said, were unimaginable.
In imposing sentence, Justice Reynolds said that while the probation report revealed the broken home and dire financial and other circumstances by which the young offender was beset, the Court still needed to set its face against the “abhorrent” act meted out to the complainant.
In a stern reprimand, the Judge told Persaud that there are persons who were beset by much graver circumstances, and yet were able to raise from their circumstances and went on to excel in various aspects of their lives.
The Judge said that while the probation report had been largely favourable to the offender, and his lawyer had made an impassioned mitigating plea on his behalf, all that had to be weighed against the vicious nature of the attack on the complainant.
Justice Reynolds said that in all of the circumstances, 18 years was an appropriate base sentence.
Therefrom, the Judge deducted five years for Persaud’s early plea, but made it clear that he would not be granted the full one-third deduction as he was initially deceptive with the Court regarding fully accepting responsibility for what he had done.
From the remaining 13 years, Justice Reynolds deducted one year together for the favourable probation report and the impulsivity by which the offender is beset.
He then ordered that the prison deduct the six years Persaud had been in custody.
Though having been admitted to bail following his arraignment in the Magistrate’s Court, Mohammed said that Persaud has never been able to post the sum granted.
He said, too, that no relative has ever visited the young man since his incarceration.
The probation officer had said that Persaud’s father abandoned him and his mother when he was just an infant, and he had been raised by an aunt who is now deceased.
Up until the time he committed the offence, the court heard that the young man resided with peers and sometimes sought lodging with other acquaintances for the short periods they allowed.
