A teenage boy who was 17 years old when he committed a counterfeiting offence received a Community Sentence by Justice Charles Quin on November 3^rd.

The judgment was made after a Submissions hearing on 29^th October when the Court heard that on the 27th June 2014 the Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a forged currency note of the value of CIS50 that he had previously tendered to the reception at St Ignatius School on 22^nd October for goods.

On the same date the Defendant also pleaded guilty to making or having in possession paper or implements of forgery.

The school receptionist was immediately suspicious as to whether the bill was genuine or not and challenged the Defendant who immediately produced another

$50 note that was accepted as genuine and he was provided with the goods plus change.

Later that day the Head of the 6th Form Department summoned the Defendant.

He was questioned about the production of the counterfeit note and responded with varying excuses. The matter was later referred to the Headmaster who in tum informed the Defendant that his parents should attend the school.

The Head Master obtained a copy of the genuine note handed to the school.

Upon inspection it was noted that the counterfeit note had the same serial number as the genuine $50 note. The Defendant then admitted that he had made the counterfeit note himself.

The Defendant was suspended and the matter was reported to the police.

The Court heard the Defendant is an 18-year old Caymanian student who, at the material time of the offence, was 17 years of age, with no previous convictions. He resides with his parents – both of whom are also Caymanian and both of whom were in Court and have been on every other occasion. In July 2014 the Defendant graduated with honours from St. Ignatius Catholic School and has received conditional offers of acceptance from various universities in the US as well as in the United Kingdom for the pursuit of his tertiary studies.

Defence counsel states that throughout his five years at High School the Defendant obtained a Grade Point average “GPA” above 3 – receiving a remarkable 3.11 in his penultimate year of study. The Defendant has been a high-performing student and is described as being a successful student both academically and on the sports field. The Defendant has long held a passion for accounting and has consistently produced excellent work throughout this course – as described by his former Accounts teacher who stated that she is very impressed by the dedication to succeed.

The Court acknowledged the police have accepted the copy of the CI$50.00 note made was not a good copy. It was done on ordinary photocopying paper. There was only one note and there is no suggestion that there were any other notes in his possession or at any other time.

The Court also had various letters of reference all showing high regard to the Defendant including one from his Headmaster who said:

“We believe that this one incident of foolish behaviour has been an important lesson for Shaquille and the school has been impressed by how [the Defendant NAMED] has dealt with this incident and how he has applied himself subsequently. [The Defendant NAMED] has a bright future ahead of him and we believe that the outcome of this court case will have a profound impact on his future career prospects. [The Defendant NAMED] has learned a very important and costly lesson and I appeal to you Honour to deal leniently with this case.”

The Probation Officer reported the Defendant had a low risk of re-offending and “appears to be a suitable candidate for a non-custodial sentence”.

The Judge said the offence was serious but took note of:

(i)   The Defendant’s young age;

(ii) The fact that he has no previous convictions;

(iii) His early guilty plea;

(iv) The Defendant’s clear remorse;

(v)   The fact that the Defendant is assessed as being at a “very low” risk level for reoffending;

(vi)   The offers for a bright academic future that awaits the Defendant;

(vii) The Defendant’s strong family background for support in the future.

He turned to many previous similar case histories before making his judgment of sentencing the Defendant to 240 hours of Community Service to be directed and supervised by the Probation Officer. Upon confirmation of completion of the 240 hours community service, the Court will not record a conviction.