The State v Shawn Kemraj Petiebabu

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Justice Lisa Ramsumair-Hinds
• Judgment Date: 16 December 2024
• Neutral Citation: TT 2024 HC 320
• Docket Number: CR-HC-SDO-2024-1581-1
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)

The State

and

Shawn Kemraj Petiebabu

For

Sacrilege

The State

and

Anslem Nicholas o/c Smeegle o/c Slim

For

Sacrilege

Before

The Honourable Justice Lisa Ramsumair-Hinds

CR-HC-SDO-2024-1581-1

CR-HC-SDO-2024-242-1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Criminal Division

Appearances:

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

Mr. S. Morris for Mr. Shawn Petiebabu.

Mr. J. Paul for Mr. Anslem Nicholas.

JOINT SENTENCING RULING

INTRODUCTION

1 The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago is particularly blessed for being a multi-religious and religiously inclusive nation. In fact, it is not uncommon to see multiple places of worship within a stone's throw from each other. Our Constitution entrenches the right to freedom of religion and religious discrimination is prohibited. When we stand at attention and pay homage to our national colours in song, we sing, “May God Bless Our Nation”. In this twin-island Republic, God is recognised and revered in many forms.

2 And yet, acts of sacrilege in our places of worship plague this small society. Indeed, in June 2024 it was reported 1 that in the last 5 years, there have been 161 reports of sacrilege. Of those reports, 47 persons were arrested. The 2 Prisoners in this joint ruling are among that number.

3 Places of worship are regarded as sanctum. They are holy ground for all who worship therein. In order to seek entry into some of these sanctuaries, feet must be bare or heads covered, while in others, ablution is mandated. Even for those who do not care to enter, the reverence ought to be respected. Where crimes are committed within places of worship, this is often met with repugnance by the community and society at large. These crimes are particularly shocking and ought to be severely deprecated by Courts of law.2

4 Indeed, sentencing for sacrilege once attached a death penalty 3 and, while that is no longer applicable in contemporary society, Courts must nevertheless signal a clear message to society acknowledging the seriousness of these offences. Certainly, the circumstances of the offence and the offender must of course be considered, and a global and individual assessment is always required, hence Tier 2 of the Aguillera methodology. The point made here is that in my view, at Tier 1, contempt for the sanctity of holy places must be met with stern sentences.

5 Sentencing is always an exercise of cool, dispassionate reason. Even as I acknowledge the importance of retribution in cases of sacrilege, sentencing necessarily involves discretion. In a society like ours, we sometimes compare apples with oranges. I deliberately chose to do a joint ruling in an effort to transparently explain what might appear to be a disparity in the sentences. The Prisoners before me committed their crime in places of worship associated with different faiths. I found points of distinction in the criminal acts (what they actually did), and attempt to transparently explain my reasoning. While the distinction was somewhat connected to the practice of the religion within the place of worship, there was no deference on my part to either religion, nor was the ethnicity of the Prisoner a factor. Though we are a multi-religious and multi-ethnic society, there are still some sensitivities which tend to obstruct cool, dispassionate reason.

6 There is an assessment in almost every single sentencing exercise where judges consider the particular conduct against what might be considered the ‘worst of the worst’. Relative to the offence of sacrilege, this was a difficult consideration. Stealing anything from a place of worship is surely a bad thing. Damaging a holy emblem seems much more offensive. I think it obvious that destruction of holy scriptures within a place of worship is particularly egregious. Academically, as I considered sentencing principles of parity, proportionality and ‘worst of the worst’ acts of sacrilege, I found myself wondering about potential injury to individual faiths in circumstances where the acts themselves might seem less criminal, for example, ‘merely’ entering the inner sanctum of a mosque while wearing filthy shoes or drinking from a communion vessel in any Christian church. Assessing the actual harm caused by the sacrilegious acts committed by these 2 Prisoners was an interesting and important aspect of the sentencing exercise and it informed the use of my discretion.

7 With those introductory remarks, I now proceed to the sentencing exercise. At paragraphs 8 – 18, I outline general principles of law which relate to both Prisoners. At paragraphs 19 – 31, I detail the application of Tier 1 through to Tier 4 for the Prisoner Shawn Kemraj Petiebabu. I similarly individualise Tier 1 to Tier 4 for the Prisoner Anslem Nicholas at paragraphs 32 – 48. Finally, I consider the final step back jointly for both Prisoners at paragraphs 49 – 52.

GENERAL SENTENCING PRINCIPLES

8 I bore in mind the sentencing methodology, aims and objectives as established in Benjamin v R4, Aguillera, Ballai, Ballai and Ayow v The State5 and Jude John Arjoon v The State6 which all sentencing Judges are required to adhere to. The five principal objects of sentencing are set out in Benjamin v R7, and bear repeating:

• a. The retributive or denunciatory, which is the same as the punitive;

• b. The deterrent vis-à-vis potential offenders;

• c. The deterrent vis-à-vis the particular offender then being sentenced;

• d. The preventative, which aims at preventing the particular offender from again offending by incarcerating him for a long period; and

• e. The rehabilitative, which contemplates the rehabilitation of the particular offender so that he might resume his place as a law-abiding member of society.8

9 Of course, certain of these objects may loom larger than others 9, depending on the individual facts of each case.

10 In Aguillera et al v The State, the overall sentencing structure is as follows:

• a. The calculation of the starting point, which takes into account the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offence only; these are the objective circumstances which relate to the gravity of the offence itself and which assist in gauging the seriousness, that is the degree of the harmfulness of the offence;

• b. An upward or downward adjustment of the starting point (or dependent on the circumstances, and if there is in effect, a cancelling out, no adjustment at all), which takes into account the aggravating and mitigating factors relative to the offender; these are the subjective circumstances of the offender which in turn inform the degree of culpability of the particular offender;

• c. (Where appropriate), a discount for a guilty plea; any deviation from the discount requires particularly careful justification and an explanation which is clearly expressed; and

• d. Credit for the period of time spent in pre-trial custody.10

11 Lastly, in Jude John Arjoon v The State11, the Court of Appeal included an additional step to the Aguillera methodology, i.e., to “ enjoin the sentencer, after the determination of the appropriate sentence(s) to be imposed, to “step back” and glean the intended sentence, whether individual or aggregate, consistent with the totality principle… The purpose of this final step is to ensure that the sentence(s) imposed is/are proportionate and not excessive.”

SENTENCING FOR SACRILEGE

12 Section 26 (a) of the Larceny Act, Chap. 11:12, provides that any person who breaks and enters any place of divine worship and commits any arrestable offence therein is guilty of sacrilege and liable to imprisonment for 10 years.

13 My search for local published decisions on sacrilege was rather fruitless. While Counsel did refer to a couple unreported cases, I regret that I could not verify any and therefore they did not form part of my consideration.

14 I did find one curious case determined recently by a Magistrate (24 November 2023). I say curious because sacrilege is (still) a strictly indictable offence. In any event, though decided unusually by a Magistrate, in the matter of PC Kern Gonzales No. 9620 v Daniel Ramoutarsingh12, the Prisoner was charged for breaking and entering a church and stealing a 43-inch Emerald television set valued at $1,900.00 Trinidad and Tobago currency, the property of the said church. He pleaded guilty before the Magistrate and was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment. In determining this sentence, the Magistrate considered the Prisoner's guilty plea, his good character, the prevalence of this type of offence and the need to deter other likely offenders from committing this type of offence.

15 I also considered how other Caribbean jurisdictions approached the offence of sacrilege. Of course, I am mindful that several of these precedents are merely of persuasive authority, and may concern an unrelatable society. Therefore, they were not slavishly followed.

16 In the Jamaican Sentencing Guidelines 13 (page A-12), it is noted that the offence of sacrilege also attracts a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment, that the typical range for sentencing is between 3–8 years imprisonment and the usual starting point is 4 years imprisonment.

17 In Elkeno Wallace v Commissioner of Police14 (a decision of the Bahamian Court of Appeal), the appellant was charged for shop breaking and sacrilege. The particulars were that the appellant broke and entered into a church and stole hot dog buns valued at $6. He pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced by a Magistrate to 2 ¹/₂ years imprisonment for shop breaking and 1 year imprisonment for sacrilege, to run concurrently. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal and affirmed his sentences, noting that the Magistrate properly considered the Appellant's medical condition, remorse, early guilty plea and antecedents which included previous convictions for shop breaking and housebreaking. Sacrilege also carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in The...