Gollop not ‘fully clear’ in submission to court

Former clerical officer at the Psychiatric Hospital Anderson Ryan Ince, who was jailed in October last year after he was found guilty of stealing and laundering $1.118 million belonging to the hospital will have to wait a bit longer to know his fate.

When the matter came up before Madam Justice Michelle Weekes in the No. 2 Supreme Court this afternoon lawyers on both sides were expected to address the court on the punishment the Hannays Road, St Lucy resident should receive for his crime.

However, only Ince’s lead defence attorney Steve Gollop was heard today, but his submissions were not sufficient for the High Court judge who afforded him an additional week to prepare.

In a 15 minute address, Gollop made reference to Ince’s pre-sentencing report that showed that he had a previously clean record and was the “average model citizen”.

He said the only minor concern of the report prepared by a probation officer was the fact that Ince remained resolute in his innocence and did not show remorse for the crime.

“It is not to say that he adopted a callous or  . . . a don’t careish attitude. Rather, as you see in the report . . . he denied the accusation. We are submitting that one can’t apologize for what one
. . . firmly believes one did not do,” Gollop said.

He added that his client’s clean record should go to his credit, and urged the court to be as “lenient as possible” when considering the appropriate sanctions to be imposed.

The defence lawyer also urged the court to “mingle its sentence with mercy but one that one must accept that will reflect the court’s displeasure with offences of this nature”.

He further pointed out that there were no aggravating circumstances to the crime as no violence was used.

“We are asking that Mr Ince be given an opportunity to rehabilitate himself and to return to the straight and narrow,” Gollop said.

However, at the end on his submission the judge said she was not “fully clear” on what Gollop was proposing with regards to sentencing.

“With all due respect, what you just suggested to me I cannot get anything from that [and] I would have to depend solely on the prosecution,” Weekes said, adding that she would need a bit more from Gollop in order to be fair to his client.

She adjourned that matter until January 17 when Gollop will again address the court, as will Director of Public Prosecutions Donna Babb-Agard, QC, who is the lead prosecutor in the case.

5 Responses to Gollop not ‘fully clear’ in submission to court

  1. Mark Rosmar January 11, 2018 at 8:32 am

    I guess not liking or agreeing the courts verdict must be grounds for leniency. The convict plead not guilty and he is not talking restitution of the monies. Okay so he is/was a model citizen I get that – but you can’t un-crime!

  2. Alex Alleyne January 11, 2018 at 1:54 pm

    “.Average Model Citizen” . This guy has been found guilty of ” Stealing and Laundering $1.118Million”.
    Are you “sober” in you submission SIR ?.

    • Belfast January 11, 2018 at 2:12 pm

      Average Model Citizen. He means $1.118 million is nothing to compare with some of the big bucks which some of his associates handle, or mishandle.

  3. Marita Giles January 12, 2018 at 12:37 am

    Mr. Ince needs to get another lawyer , his lawyer’s summation was very poor. As a former Snr. Public Officer or anyone who works with the Smart Stream System can tell you no Junior Officer has security to approve any money. It is always done by two Snr. Officers either the Accountant, Snr. Accountant or Head of the Department. Mr Ince should call the names of the Seniors involved. Don’t go alone let all who build the massive houses gst lock up too. The racket was going before Mr. Ince call their names.

  4. Marita Giles January 12, 2018 at 1:16 am

    This young man needs to get another lawyer. His lawyer’s summation was very poor. As a former Snr. Public Officer; who used the Smart Stream System there is a code/ password and no junior Officer has security to approve anything in the system . It is always done by a Supervisor . Either the Accountant, Snr. Accountant or Head of Department. The Supervisor would have to key in their security and then let him do the work as is done by a lot of Snr. Officers. He needs to speak, call the nanes of those involved. It was happening before he went there. Unless they have something keeping for him.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *