Dear Editor,
ATTORNEYS are always expected to ensure the best outcomes for their clients in whatever matter before the courts, and this is regardless as to the magnitude of the seriousness of the matter for which prosecutorial action is taken. In fact, it is a moral, as well as a professional, responsibility which every attorney undertakes on agreement to represent.
Having said this, one must understand and admit that there are some cases that are so serious, without any mitigating factors that will work for the beneficial outcome of their clients, that the most that defence counsel is expected to do, in the circumstance, is to plead for the mercy of the Court for a less severe sanction. And this is because a custodial sentence will be mandatory.

Editor, it is a given that in cases involving narcotics and drug trafficking, once it is proven that the accused were indeed found in possession of the substance, particularly after a period of surveillance, that the inevitable will be custodial punishment. One may recall, though, an accused, sometime ago being given a “suspended five-year sentence” by a magistrate for a significant quantity of narcotics proven to have been in his possession. He was also given a similar dispensation sentence of two years for arms and ammunition.
Such a sentence not only raised all eyebrows; it shocked even the legal profession for its unprecedentedness, as it was opined that the magistrate “went outside of the law”. I stand corrected by saying that it was surprising that such a magistrate was not asked to explain grounds for such decision, outrageous and an affront to a matter in which guilt had been proven. One recalls the DPP appealing against this court-shocker.

In any other jurisdiction, such a judicial officer would have been removed, in the same manner as a judge in the United States who, not so long ago, decided against a teen being tried for a rape which he had videotaped. The judge said that the young suspect came from “a good family”, and had been recording “very high academic scores”. Of course, the judge has since been recalled, meaning that he has been removed.

I am no legal mind, but one wonders on what basis would attorneys for two drug convicts plead for a “suspended sentence” in a case where there were apparently no mitigating issues in favour of the accused, who were fairly caught in a surveillance operation: News Source “Three-and-a-half years in jail for cocaine trafficking duo”, Aug. 8.

Certainly the Madame Magistrate did otherwise, and applied the appropriate sanction. One is not suggesting/proposing any action against the attorneys, who most naturally would seem to have been seeking the best out of a very bad situation. Maybe they recall what the earlier magistrate did; maybe as precedent, which would have been utterly ridiculous. However, one will perhaps agree that they were seeking to make the law an ass, insulting the court in the process with such a very disrespectful submission. The magistrate must be commended, for she upheld the justness of the law.

Regards,
Troy Garraway.