Cubans sentenced to 91 days for escaping custody

(CMR) Ten Cubans, including two women, charged with escaping lawful custody for leaving the immigration detention center, were sentenced to 91 days in prison when they appeared in court this morning, 1 March.

The starting point was six months imprisonment or 182 days; however, the presiding judge Magistrate Kirsty-Ann Gunn deducted 45 days for personal mitigation factors and a 1/3 discount for their guilty plea. This resulted in 91 days imprisonment, with time spent in prison credited from the 91 days. The migrants are also subject to the laws on the early release of licenses.

The judge said she also took into consideration that the escape did not involve damage to property. The maximum fine for escaping lawful custody is a fine or imprisonment of up to 4 years; this offense is generally considered serious as lawful detainees are kept separate for good reason – to protect the community, the judge said.

During the sentencing, the court heard that the migrants had no intention to break the law, but said desperation drove them to escape. They now want authorities to take a more realistic and sympathetic approach to their position.

They claimed they left the facility trying to contact their family and get food. They also had numerous complaints about the conditions of detention; however, the  DPP rebuts almost all of them.

It was also revealed that while in custody, their behavior was exemplary in the sense that there was no destruction of government property, abuse of staff, whether physical or verbal and no protest that would require police intervention.

The judge also considered that their escape involved too little planning and that none of the accused committed any offense while at large in the community and posed little risk to the community. They were at large for an “incredibly short period” of 1-6 days.

While they were considered to be at low risk of reoffending, the judge said it is still a serious matter, and to maintain law and order in detention facilities and to avoid further escapes, a deterrent sentence is necessary.

She said the sentence is appropriate as it sends a message to detainees, including these defendants, that there will be significant consequences if they escape custody.

In regards to the condition of the detention center, Magistrate Gunn said, “I am not in a position to decide the truthfulness … court cannot comment on standards of detention.”