The State v Prisma Joseph
| Jurisdiction | Dominica |
| Judge | Colin Williams J |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 2024 |
| Neutral Citation | DM 2024 HC 1 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO: DOMHCR: 2023/0015 |
| Court | High Court (Dominica) |
CASE NO: DOMHCR: 2023/0015
IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(CRIMINAL DIVISION)
Ms Sherma Dalrymple, DPP, along with Ms Daina Matthew and Ms Marie Louise Pierre-Louis State Counsel for the State
Mr Darius Jones for the Defendant
The Defendant, Mr Prisma Joseph, on the 9 th of February 2023, pleaded guilty to a single count of deception.
The offence was: “Contrary to section 16 (1) of the Theft Act, Chapter 10:33 of the Laws of Dominica, Revised Edition 1990.”
The Theft Act states:
“A person who by any deception obtains property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for ten years.”
The particulars of the offence, (as amended), states that the Defendant:
“…between the 16 th day of June 2014 and the 17 th day of July 2014 at Roseau in the parish of St. George in the Commonwealth of Dominica in the district aforesaid did dishonestly obtain from Clement Royer the sum of Eighteen Thousand Eastern Caribbean Currency (ECC$18,000.00), with the intention of permanently depriving the said Clement Royer thereof of [sic] deception namely, by falsely representing that you were the owner of a piece of land located at Union Estate, Point Michel. The said ECC$18,000.00 being a deposit on the purchase of the said land at Union Estate, Point Michel.”
Mr Joseph was indicted by the Learned Director of Public Prosecutions on the 26 th of January 2024 for the offence which took place almost ten years ago.
According to the agreed facts, the virtual complainant, Mr Clement Royer, a businessman, was in Roseau, in the Commonwealth of Dominica, on the 16 th of June 2014, when the Defendant inquired of Mr Royer whether he was interested in purchasing some land at Point Michel. Mr Royer indicated that he was interested in doing so. That same day, Mr Royer and the Defendant went to visit the location in Point Michel. Mr Royer was shown the boundaries of the land by the Defendant. Mr Royer inquired of the Defendant about a Certificate of Title for the land. The Defendant informed Mr Royer that “the title is in process”. The Defendant requested a deposit of $7,500.00 to give to the attorney who was preparing the title.
Following the site visit to the land, on four separate occasions, Mr Royer journeyed to Scotia Bank, withdrew cash and on each occasion handed over an envelope with the money to the Defendant who was seated in Mr Royer's vehicle, waiting to receive the funds. These sums were paid by Mr Royer with the intention of eventually getting the land. On no occasion was Mr Royer presented with any written documentation or receipt.
On the 20 th of June 2014, the Defendant requested the payment of $4,000.00 to pay to the attorney to start the process of getting the title to the land. This was the first payment that was made following the request from Mr Joseph for a deposit. The Defendant informed Mr Royer that the title would be ready in three weeks.
One week later, on the 27 th of June 2014, the Defendant received another payment of $4,000.00 from Mr Royer. It was on this occasion that Mr Joseph informed Mr Royer that the land was valued at $25,000.00.
On the 3 rd of July 2014, the Defendant informed Mr Royer that the attorney had to travel because of an emergency, but a further payment of $5,000.00 was required. The sum was paid to Mr Joseph.
Then on the 17 th of July 2014, the Defendant informed Mr Royer that the title to the land was ready, but he needed a further payment of $5,000.00, following which the Defendant could go for the title and come back to Mr Royer.
Mr Royer paid the Defendant a total of $18,000.00. After Mr Joseph received the payment on the 17 th of July 2014 from Mr Royer, he left but never returned.
Mr Royer made several unsuccessful efforts over the next two weeks to contact the Defendant.
Two years later, on the 11 th of August 2016, the matter was reported to the police.
Mr Joseph was arrested and charged with deception in relation to this matter on the 22 nd of November 2016 and he was remanded into custody. He obtained bail on the 23 rd of December 2016.
Counsel, Mr Darius Jones, in mitigation on behalf of the Defendant, noted that Mr Joseph entered an early guilty plea.
Counsel submitted that his client was extremely remorseful. He said that Mr Joseph felt that he let down himself, his family and more particularly his mother.
Mr Jones suggested that a non-custodial sentence be imposed. He asked that Mr Joseph be given an opportunity “to make amends and compensate the virtual complainant.” Mr Jones noted that “it would be useful and helpful if the Defendant is given an opportunity to repay [the sum to Mr Royer].”
Counsel noted that if Mr Joseph was imprisoned, the Defendant will not be able to fulfill any obligation to make restitution to Mr Royer.
Victim Impact
The State adduced victim impact evidence from Mr Royer.
Mr Royer stated that at the time, (in 2014) his business was affected by the Defendant's actions. This was because money was taken from the business to pay Mr Joseph.
Mr Royer indicated that he had no real interest at this time in recovering the sum from Mr Joseph.
Mr Royer during cross examination by Counsel Jones, pointed out that the Defendant was given several opportunities to repay the money, but that Mr Joseph never kept any of his promises to repay.
The offence, as indicated earlier, occurred in 2014. And the matter was not reported until August 2016.
Mr Jones was arrested and charged in November 2016 - roughly two years and four months after the he received the last payment from Mr Royer.
There were only two witnesses in this matter: the virtual complainant, Mr Royer, and the investigating officer.
The Preliminary Inquiry commenced on the 24 th of June 2022. It continued on the 2 nd of August 2022. It ended almost one year and four months later, on the 24 th of November 2023. Then, the matter was committed to the High Court on the 4 th of December 2023, nine and a half years after the incident.
Following the filing of the indictment on the 26 th of January 2023, Mr Joseph first appeared at the High Court to be arraigned on the 1 st of February 2024. On that occasion he asked for time to instruct a named lawyer.
Mr Joseph returned to Court on the 5 th of February 2024 and indicated that the original lawyer he named was unable to represent him. The Defendant stated that he had contacted another lawyer to represent him and that lawyer was present in the precincts of the Court. The matter was accordingly adjourned to the following day.
On the 6 th of February 2024, the Defendant failed to appear at Court. Counsel, Mr Jones, reported that the Defendant was at the hospital. According to Counsel, he was in the company of the Defendant walking to Court about 15 minutes before the scheduled commencement of the matter and when he looked back, he saw the Defendant on the ground surrounded by persons. The ambulance was summoned and Mr Joseph was taken away.
The following morning, the 7 th of February 2024, the Defendant's mother appeared at Court. The Defendant's mother indicated that her son was at home sick. She presented a sick leave certificate that had a name bearing a resemblance to the Defendant's. The sick leave certificate stated that the named person on the sick leave certificate was suffering with vertigo. The certificate also stated that (1) the person examined was a female, and (2) the person was employed with the Solid Waste unit; neither of the two descriptions applied to the Defendant – who was a male and not employed.
The matter was stood down on the 7 th of February 2024 for the Defendant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial