The Tribune

By NICO SCAVELLA

Tribune Staff Reporter

nscavella@tribunemedia.net

THE COURT of Appeal yesterday dismissed the Crown’s legal challenge of the “unduly lenient” punishment imposed on a woman who threw acid on her lover, his wife and the couple’s son three years ago.

Appellate President Sir Hartman Longley, and fellow Justices Stella Crane-Scott and Roy Jones, dismissed the Crown’s challenge of the $8,700 compensation order imposed on D’Nika Mackey for the late-2015 attack at her lover’s Fox Dale home.

The attack occurred on December 13, 2015, the day after the married couple celebrated their wedding anniversary on Paradise Island. Mackey had an affair with the woman’s husband for two years, but he made amends with his wife of six years in October 2015. The couple still lived apart with their parents, despite the move to salvage the marriage.

Around 1.30pm on the day in question, Mackey confronted them and their three-year-old son outside the man’s home in Fox Dale in eastern New Providence.

Mackey called out to her lover, who ignored her, and, in anger, she threw acid, causing injuries. The wife’s injuries were the most severe as she received acid burns to the side of her face and arm.

At the time of her arrest, Mackey took responsibility for her actions and said she was angry because she was still in a relationship with the married man.

She admitted to the crimes before Magistrate Samuel McKinney in September 2016, who consequently opted to not impose a custodial sentence, but rather ordered Mackey to keep the peace for one year or face six months in prison.

He also imposed a compensation order against Mackey.

The Crown thus sought to appeal Magistrate McKinney’s decision to impose a compensation order, arguing it was too lenient, especially given the magistrate attaching no consequences if the restitution was not made.

Yesterday, the Crown submitted it was seeking to have the Court of Appeal overturn the magistrate’s decision and impose a custodial sentence on Mackey, charging her punishment should have been four years imprisonment.

The Crown also noted todate, Mackey has not fully honoured the compensation order.

However, Sir Hartman stated if Mackey has not completed her payments as ordered, the complainants are at liberty to pursue the issue as a civil debt.

“They are not without remedy,” the appellate president said.

After brief legal arguments, the Crown submitted the “best course of action” would be for the appellate court to amend the compensation order to reflect a penalty because it has not been fully honoured.

However, Sir Hartman decided it best not to interfere with the magistrate’s decision, and instead suggested the Crown advise the complainants of their rights to take civil action against Mackey.

In light of Sir Hartman’s proposition, the Crown indicated they would withdraw the appeal, resulting in the appellate court dismissing the matter by default.

Mackey, meanwhile was notably absent during yesterday’s proceedings, and it was revealed by counsel she is out of the jurisdiction. Thus, the appeal proceeded in her absence.