PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad, Jul 29, CMC -The Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has allowed an appeal filed by Danny Lamar Husbands and has set aside his three-month custodial sentence imposed for trafficking in cannabis in Barbados.
In its ruling on Tuesday, the CCJ, which is Barbados’ highest and final court, set aside the Court of Appeal, holding that the lower courts erred in their decision.
The CCJ instead substituted a non-custodial sentence, ordering that Husbands be placed on a bond to be of good behaviour for six months, and in default of compliance, to pay a fine of BDS$675 (One Barbados dollar=US$0.50 cents) within 14 days.
The appeal arose from Husbands’ guilty plea for trafficking 90 grams of cannabis. The Magistrate imposed a custodial sentence, placing significant emphasis on Husbands’ previous convictions and the view that his offending had escalated over time.
The Court of Appeal in Barbados subsequently upheld that sentence with the same view that Husbands’ criminal history justified the custodial sentence.
The CCJ had to determine whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to uphold the custodial sentence imposed and it considered whether the custodial sentence was consistent with the requirements of the Penal System Reform Act and, in particular, whether the offence was so serious that only a custodial sentence could be justified.
In its ruling, the CCJ explained that the Act formed part of a broader programme of penal reform intended to expand the use of non-custodial sentencing options and reduce unnecessary reliance on imprisonment.
The Court emphasised that there is a high threshold for a custodial sentence to be justified, while also noting that sentencing courts in Barbados had generally favoured non-custodial sentences for cannabis trafficking in comparable quantities. The CCJ stressed that the lower courts failed to assess whether a custodial sentence was absolutely necessary in the circumstances of this case.
The Trinidad-based Court also underscored that the lower courts were wrong to focus on Husbands’ previous convictions in deciding whether the custodial sentence was justified.
The CCJ explained that the Act explicitly did not permit an offence to be treated as one justifying a custodial sentence merely because of an offender’s previous convictions.
The CCJ further found that the Court of Appeal should not have upheld the custodial sentence without first obtaining a pre-sentence report as required by the Act and for these reasons, allowed the appeal and substituted a non-custodial sentence in place of the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the Magistrate.
CMC/ah/ir/2026