Princes Town men win appeal against jail terms for disorderly conduct, obscene language

Two Princes Town men who were each sentenced to 14 days’ simple imprisonment for disorderly behaviour and using obscene language have successfully appealed their sentences.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Justices of Appeal Charmaine Pemberton and Carla Browne-Antoine, on October 28, allowed the appeals of Eric Phillip, and Paul Phillip, ruling that the jail terms imposed by the magistrate were excessive.

Both men had pleaded guilty before Magistrate Lisa Singh-Phillip to the offences, which arose from a November 27, 2024 incident at Tarouba Link Road, San Fernando. The men were arrested following a verbal altercation with police officers who were at the scene of a family member’s vehicle accident.

Their relative, who also faced charges, pleaded not guilty and his matter remains before the magistrates’ court.

At the initial hearing, the men's attorneys pleaded for leniency, noting that both Eric and Paul Phillip were first-time offenders of good character who had expressed remorse.

Despite this, the magistrate sentenced each man to 14 days’ simple imprisonment for each offence, to run concurrently. The offences carry maximum penalties of $200 fines or imprisonment for up to 30 and 60 days, respectively.

On appeal, the men’s legal team of Aaron Mahabir, Yves Jacques Nicholson and Mathias Sylvester, argued that the custodial sentences were unduly severe and disproportionate to the nature of the offences.

The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that while the conduct was improper, it did not warrant a custodial penalty. The panel said the magistrate ought to have exercised the discretion available under section 149(2)(a) of the Summary Courts Act, Chapter 4:20, which allows the appellate court to substitute a sentence it considers appropriate.

The Appeal Court quashed the prison sentences and instead imposed fines of $200 on each charge, with a default term of seven days’ simple imprisonment.

At the appeal, the attorneys highlighted the dated nature of laws on obscene language, arguing that they reflect “outdated and oppressive moral standards” rooted in colonial history.

“These laws were designed to control and suppress the behaviour of colonised populations using moralistic criteria that ignored local cultural norms and expressions,” the appeal application said, adding that in a modern, independent society, such offences appear “disconnected from principles of free expression and personal autonomy.”

The State was represented by Sabrina Dougdeen-Jaglal.