A man involved in a botched armed robbery that resulted in a suspect being shot has been sentenced to more than two years behind bars.

Umdae Woolridge, 25, pleaded guilty earlier this year to a single charge of burglary in connection to an incident on May 14 last year.

During a Supreme Court trial, the court heard that on that evening two men — one wielding a firearm — entered a North Shore Road, Hamilton Parish, home and stole two phones. While leaving the property, the firearm went off, injuring one of the suspects.

Taariq Clarke later appeared at King Edward VII Memorial Hospital with a gunshot wound to his arm. He initially denied being involved in the robbery, claiming he had been shot while travelling along Vesey Street, but he later pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary on the grounds that he had no knowledge that a firearm would be used in the robbery, but failed to withdraw once the weapon was produced. He was later sentenced to 7½ years in prison for the offence.

Prosecutors alleged that Clarke and a second man, Josef Smith, had been the men in the house while Woolridge had masterminded the plot.

While Smith was convicted by a jury of aggravated burglary and the unlawful discharge of a firearm, Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons ordered that a Supreme Court jury find Woolridge not guilty of those charges after the Crown had closed its case.

Woolridge then pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of “simple” burglary in connection to the same incident — a plea he had previously offered at the start of the trial.

During a sentencing hearing yesterday afternoon, prosecutor Loxly Ricketts called for a sentence of nine years behind bars, arguing that while he deserved a discount for his guilty plea, the aggravating circumstances outweighed those in his favour.

He noted that Woolridge has previously been convicted of both robbery and burglary in separate incidents and, even if he was unaware of that a firearm would be used, he had set the wheels of the crime in motion.

However defence lawyer Craig Attridge, representing Woolridge, said his client should not be sentenced based on the action of others.

“The fact of the matter is that had it not been for the firearm, which my client had no knowledge of, we would be in the Magistrates’ Court,” he said.

He called for a sentence not exceeding two years in custody, noting that Woolridge had not only offered an early guilty plea for the offence for which he was convicted, but also offered to assist police with their investigation.

Woolridge himself apologised for his involvement in the crime, saying: “I was as shocked and surprised as the victims of the crime. I had no idea a gun was going to be used and I honestly didn’t think anyone was going to be there at the time.”

He said his time in remand had really opened his eyes, saying that he wants a chance to raise his young son.

Mrs Justice Simmons said that given all the circumstances of the offence an immediate custodial sentence was appropriate as a means of both protecting the public and serving as a deterrent.

Noting that the offence occurred at night and the complainants were home at the time of the crime, a four-year prison term would be appropriate, but Woolridge deserved a 30 per cent discount due to his early guilty plea.

She sentenced Woolridge to two years and ten months in prison, ordering that the time he has already spent in custody be taken into account.