Court cuts 85 years off 110- year sentenceWednesday 5th March, 1996 by Curtis Williams
THE Court of Appeal yesterday effectively reduced the sentence of Oswald Jack by 85 years.
Jack was sentenced in the San Fernando Assizes by Justice Lennox Deyalsingh to 110 years hard labour. He had pleaded guilty to three different indictments on 18 counts of crimes ranging from robbery, larceny, possession of a firearm to receiving stolen goods and was given consecutive sentencing.
When the matter was called before the Court of Appeal, attorney for the appellant, Martin George pleaded with the court to have Jack’s sentences run concurrently.
Attorney for the State, Deputy Director of Public Prosecution, Anthony Carmona said consecutive sentences should be handed down only when the individual was beyond repair.
He told the court that if the sentence was kept as is then even with remission the appellant will not see “the light of day.”
The court then ruled that it found the sentence extremely excessive.
Justice of Appeal Sat Sharma said, “We are not unmindful of our responsibility to the wider society nor the deterrent action of punishment nor the frequency with which these actions are committed.”
But the Justices said the sentence was unrealistic and would bring the penal justice system into disrepute.
The court affirmed the conviction and sentenced Jack to 25 years in prison starting yesterday.