On May 15 Matthew Hazel was sent to prison for nine years for allegedly attempting to murder an off-duty police officer during a botched robbery.

A judgment released last month explains the reasoning behind this sentence.

As mitigating factors, High Court Justice Nicola Byer took into consideration that Mr. Hazel had no previous convictions and was only 23 at the time of the offence, according to a recently published copy of the judgment.

“In considering the sentences to be given to this defendant, this court must consider his overall criminality,” Ms. Byer wrote. “There is no evidence that this defendant is pre-disposed for re-offending, and what evidence we do have is that of positive good character of the defendant.”

The defendant, who was represented by defence attorney Valerie Stephens-Gordon, was sentenced on May 15 for three charges — nine years for attempted murder, six years for unlawful possession of a firearm, and four years for attempted robbery — but the sentences are to run concurrently.

Mr. Hazel did not receive prison time for the unlawful possession of explosives.

Aggravating factors

Although the defence argued that the court should be merciful because the crime was out of character for the young man, the Crown claimed that the aggravating factors far outweighed the mitigating ones.

The Crown argued that the defendant’s sentences should reflect that the act was premeditated; that a high sum of money was targeted; that a firearm was used to execute the robbery; that the virtual complainant was a police officer who was providing a public service at the time of the attack; and that the defendant showed a lack of remorse.

The justice concurred with some of the Crown’s points, but rejected two of their submissions.

Ms. Byer disagreed that the defendant’s lack of remorse should count as an aggravating factor, pointing out that he had consistently maintained his innocence throughout the trial.

“It would be extremely disingenuous that he now utter regret or remorse,” she stated in the judgment.

Ms. Byer also rejected the Crown’s submission that the fact the virtual complainant was a police officer should be taken into consideration.

“In the court’s mind, for this to have amounted to an aggravating factor, the defendant would have had to know, at the time of the committing the offences, that the complainant was a police officer,” she explained.

Allegations

Mr. Hazel allegedly attempted to rob Sergeant Durville Carty at gunpoint while he was depositing cash from One Mart’s daily earnings at the FirstCaribbean International Bank just after midnight on Feb.16, 2015.

Mr. Carty, who had his own firearm, testified during the trial that he and the masked assailant exchanged multiple shots, and he said he believes he shot the attacker before he escaped.

Mr. Hazel sought treatment at Peebles Hospital for a gunshot wound moments after the incident, but the defence argued that he was an innocent bystander who was heading to the ATM when he was accidently shot in the crossfire.

The Crown claimed that jurors could logically conclude that the defendant was guilty because the DNA found on a mask recovered from the crime scene matched DNA samples obtained from him.

The defence, however, argued that it was possible that Mr. Hazel’s DNA ended up on the mask through secondary transfer, which occurs when DNA is transferred onto an item by an intermediary.

A nine-member jury unanimously convicted Mr. Hazel of the four charges on March 31.

{fcomment}