The State v Darren Romeo

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Justice Lisa Ramsumair-Hinds
• Judgment Date: 17 December 2024
• Neutral Citation: TT 2024 HC 322
• Docket Number: CR-HC-TGO-33-2019-1
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)

The State

and

Darren Romeo

For

Burglary

Robbery with Aggravation

&

Rape

Before

The Honourable Justice Lisa Ramsumair-Hinds

CR-HC-TGO-33-2019-1

CR T024/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Criminal Division

Appearances:

Ms. C. Samuel and Ms. G. Guy for the State.

Ms. A. Ramjag for the Prisoner

SENTENCE RULING

INTRODUCTION

1 By an Indictment filed on 18 August 2016, the Prisoner Mr Darren Romeo was charged with the offences of burglary, robbery with aggravation and rape.

2 The 3 counts were alleged to have taken place at Patience Hill in the island of Tobago. The relevant particulars of each count are as follows:

• a. Count 1: Burglary: That the Prisoner and another in the night of 9 December 2010, broke and entered into the dwelling house of KC with intent to commit an arrestable offence therein, namely, to rob;

• b. Count 2: Robbery with Aggravation: That the Prisoner and another on or about 10 December 2010, being armed with machetes, together robbed KC of one Laptop computer valued at £1000 sterling, one I-pod valued at £160 sterling, one wristwatch valued at £70 sterling, one safety deposit box valued at $1780.00, £80 sterling and $1700.00 in cash.

• c. Count 3: Rape: That the Prisoner on 10 December 2010, had sexual intercourse with KC, without her consent.

3 On 11 November 2024, I gave a Maximum Sentence Indication (MSI) of five years imprisonment as the highest of the three counts, with all offences to run concurrently. This was in keeping with the principles noted by the Court of Appeal in Orlando Alexis v The State 1 namely:

• a. “Put simply, the MSI is a commitment by the Court that should the accused plead guilty, the final sentence imposed will not exceed the indication” 2;

• b. “The MSI represents the highest sentence that can be imposed by the Court after the process for final sentencing is complete”;

• c. “The MSI is not to be used as the ‘starting point’ in the sentencing process 3”.

4 On 13 November 2024, the Prisoner indicated his acceptance of the MSI. He was promptly arraigned and pleaded guilty to all 3 counts as charged on the Indictment and on the basis of the agreed facts which had been filed during the MSI process. Subsequently, the allocutus was put to the Prisoner and a plea in mitigation was filed on his behalf by Defence Counsel. I duly considered the facts, the plea in mitigation and the Bio-Social Report.

5 The Prisoner now falls to be sentenced.

SENTENCING PRINCIPLES

6 I bore in mind the sentencing methodology, aims and objectives as established in Benjamin v R 4, Aguillera, Ballai, Ballai and Ayow v The State 5 and Jude John Arjoon v The State 6 which all sentencing Judges are required to adhere to. I also had regard to the recent Court of Appeal guidance with respect to MSIs in Orlando Alexis v The State.

7 I considered several cases noted in the JEITT Sentencing Handbook, as well as certain others. I took care to consider that the majority of the cases were pre- Aguillera and stipulated final sentences. They therefore did not reflect a true appreciation of a starting point in accordance with the Aguillera methodology. Nevertheless, they were still useful.

8 As it relates to the rape charge, in the case of The State v Dain Lezama 7, I discussed a number of sentencing precedents and noted a sentencing range of 13 to 30 years for this offence.

9 I paid particular attention to the following cases:

• a. Steve Williams v The State 8 — The appellant unlawfully entered the victim's home while armed with a gun. He demanded money and jewellery and repeatedly had non-consensual sexual intercourse with the victim and intermittently committed acts of buggery on her. Thereafter, he forced the victim to perform oral sex on him. The ordeal lasted 1.5 hours and was partially witnessed by the victim's three year old son. On appeal, the following final sentences were imposed: Fifteen years imprisonment with hard labour for Burglary, Life imprisonment not to be released for twenty years for Rape and fifteen years imprisonment for Robbery with Aggravation.

• b. Alton Porter v The State 9 — The appellant and another, armed and with concealed faces, pretended to be police officers with a search warrant to be executed at the victim's dwelling house. The members of that household had retired to bed when the appellant

  and his companion forced their way into the home. The appellant's companion raped WB and CM and then forced them to perform oral sex. The appellant then entered the room and raped CM and forced her to perform oral sex on him, after which he again raped her. Both men then took items from the house including household items and jewellery. On appeal, the conviction was dismissed but the sentences were varied. The aggravating factors considered were: (i) that they pretended to be police officers and pretended to have warrants to gain access into the house; (ii) they were armed with lethal weapons; (iii) they disguised themselves with ski masks; and, (iv) their actions were planned and carefully thought out. The mitigating factors considered were the appellant was 24 years old at the time of the offence and he was of good character. The Court of Appeal sentenced as follows (all final sentences): (i) Rape of WB – 20 years imprisonment; (ii) serious indecency of WB – 5 years imprisonment; (iii) Rape of CM – 20 years imprisonment and 20 strokes with the cat-o-nine tails; (iv) serious indecency of CM – 5 years imprisonment; and (v) Burglary – 15 years imprisonment.

• c. Francis Young v The State 10 — A group of family members and friends were vacationing in Tobago and were approached by three masked men armed with a gun, a machete, and a crowbar. The men demanded money and instructed that the group accompany them to the bank to withdraw cash. The appellant was convicted on two counts of Kidnapping and two counts of Robbery with Aggravation. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment with hard labour on the two counts for Kidnapping and fifteen years imprisonment with hard labour and fifteen strokes with the birch for the counts of Robbery with Aggravation, to run concurrently. Both sentences

  were affirmed on appeal. The aggravating factors considered were: the two previous convictions of the appellant (the more recent being for Housebreaking and Larceny); the need for protection of the society; the deterrence of the offender and of others who might be tempted to offend; the need to preserve confidence in the judicial system; and the seriousness of the offence.

• d. Samuel Hutchins v The State 11 — The appellant and two others broke into and entered the victim's home armed with an ice pick, gun and cutlass. They demanded money and threatened to kill her sons. It was later discovered that the telephone wire had been cut, one of the dogs was dead, and items valued at $10,000.00 were missing from the home. The appellant was convicted of Burglary and Robbery with Aggravation and sentenced to a final term of twelve years imprisonment with hard labour on both counts, to run concurrently, which was affirmed on appeal. The aggravating factors were: the seriousness of the offence; the prevalence of the offence; the terror which the family underwent for half an hour; the sexual assault of the mother; and the need to protect society.

• e. Allan Jones v The State 12 — The appellant, together with two others, armed with a gun and knife, forced his way into the victim's apartment and robbed the occupants of cash and jewellery. He indecently assaulted them by forcing one victim to perform fellatio on him while he inserted his finger into the other victim's vagina and fondled her breasts. The appellant was convicted and sentenced on two counts of Robbery with Aggravation to a final term of ten years imprisonment on each count, on two counts of Serious Indecency to three years imprisonment on each count and

  on two counts of Indecent Assault to three years imprisonment; sentences to run concurrently. These sentences were affirmed on appeal.

• f. The State v Allison Paul 13 — The Prisoner was convicted of Burglary and Rape. The victim was asleep in her home when she was awakened by a loud noise coming from the kitchen. She opened her door and upon opening her door she felt a hand grab her by the neck and began choking her. It was the Prisoner whom she recognised. The Prisoner dragged her into the living room, held on to her throat, squeezed it and threatened to kill her. The Prisoner then pushed the victim on her bed, took off her nightgown and black underwear and proceeded to have sexual intercourse with her against her will. The Prisoner then told her to sit on the couch because he wanted to talk to her. However, she told him that she had nothing to say to him. He then asked the victim for $450.00 to purchase a windscreen for his car. She told him that she did not have any money and the Prisoner then threatened to kill the victim if she told anyone what happened. He then left. The Court found an appropriate starting point to be 20 years imprisonment after considering these aggravating factors: (i) The prevalence and seriousness of the offence and crimes against women; (ii) The victim was vulnerable — she was an elderly woman of 66 years old; (iii) The use of violence against the victim – the Prisoner held her throat and choked her; (iv) The Prisoner made threats to the victim before and after raping her; (v) This attack was an unprovoked and unwarranted attack; and (vi) The victim was raped in her home – this was a violation of her home and a right to privacy. There were no mitigating factors in relation to the offence of Rape. At Tier 2 of

  Aguillera, the trial judge increased the starting point to 22 years after considering the Prisoner's previous convictions for larceny and kidnapping. The appeal in this matter was dismissed and the sentence was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in 2022.

• g. Michael Graham v The State 14 — The...