By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal has quashed the six-month prison sentences imposed on two men who watched a woman have sex through one of the windows of her home.

Robin Jeantil and Rechard Charles were charged with trespassing and voyeurism after they went on the woman’s premises in Abaco without her permission on June 6. According to court documents, while there, the men “surreptitiously” observed the woman “engage in explicit sexual activity” at her Elbow Cay residence.

During their arraignment, the men admitted to both offences and were each fined $50 for trespassing and remanded into custody for six months for voyeurism.

Jeantil and Charles appealed their sentences on the grounds that some “material irregularity” substantially affected the merits of their case. They further argued that the magistrate erred when she “proceeded to conviction and sentence” without giving them an opportunity to make a plea in mitigation.

On Monday, Justices Maureen Crane-Scott, Milton Evans and Carolita Bethell quashed the appellants’ six-month sentences and replaced them with a $300 fine.

In their judgment, delivered by Justice Crane-Scott, the panel said after reviewing the circumstances of the case, they agreed that the sentences handed down to Jeantil and Charles were too harsh.

“As is well known, a sentence is unduly severe if it falls outside the range of sentences which the sentencing judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, and having regard to like cases, could reasonably consider appropriate,” she said. “The offence of voyeurism is undoubtedly a serious offence involving an invasion of privacy. However, the mitigating factors in this particular case outweighed the aggravating factors. Accordingly, the imposition of a six-month custodial sentence on these appellants, who were both young men of previously good character, was not only severe, but unduly severe.

“We accordingly quashed the custodial sentences and substituted a fine of $300 on each appellant to be paid in 14 days, or in default, imprisonment of three months. As we stated on July 15, 2021, we would ordinarily have imposed a fine of $350 for the offence. However, we reduced the fine to $300 to take account of the time which the appellants had already spent in custody relative to the (now quashed) six-month custodial sentence which had been imposed.”