by HEATHER LYNN-EVANSON

FORMER CHIEF MARSHAL Belfield Randolph McCollin, who dipped into Government's funds "as if they were his personal piggy bank" over a three-year period should have been jailed immediately upon conviction.

However, because his lawyer did not challenge the suspended sentence, the fine and the community service he actually got for his seven offences, the Court of Appeal cannot touch the sentences.

That was the ruling yesterday as McCollin, a career civil servant of Mangrove Park, St. Philip, appeared in the No. 1 Supreme Court to hear the Court's decision on his appeal. It was turned down, paving the way for the post of Chief Marshall to be declared vacant.

In May, 2005, McCollin was found guilty of stealing sums of money, totalling $16 935, belonging to the Crown, between December 1997 and August 2000.

The then presiding judge, Mr. Justice Christopher Blackman, imposed three years for the first count but suspended it for three years and fined McCollin $15 000 in nine months or three years in jail.

The judge had also ordered McCollin to perform 240 hours of community service.

Sentences lenient

Yesterday, President of the Court Justice of Appeal Frederick Waterman, who presided with Justices of Appeal Peter Williams and John Connell, said the sentences were too lenient and the fine was inappropriate.

"Given the position [McCollin] held in society and the length of time for which he held that position, the court takes a serious view of this offence," Justice of Appeal Waterman said.

"[McCollin] was in a position of trust and used the funds at his disposal as if they were his own personal piggy bank. That was simply unacceptable. An immediate custodial sentence was not only merited but necessary," the court held.

However Justice of Appeal Waterman, who read the decision, said the court had no power to quash the sentences because McCollin's attorney, Sir Richard Cheltenham, did not appeal against sentence.

"For this court to exercise its power to impose a more severe sentence than that passed by a judge or a magistrate, there must be an appeal against sentence, or an application made by the Director of Public Prosecutions for a review of sentence if it appears to the Director that the sentence has been 'unduly lenient'," Waterman said.

In any event, he said the power to increase sentence was one which should be used sparingly.

In the end, the court held that while the judge did not properly direct the jury about McCollin's right to remain silent and how his unsworn statement should be treated, in addition to his inappropriate comments, those mistakes were not enough to render the verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The court later dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentences.