A man who was fined for threatening a Magistrate should have received a period of incarceration, according to Chief Justice Ian Kawaley.

Laurie Furbert was found guilty after he threatened Magistrate Nicole Stoneham in 2012 following a Magistrates’ Court trial and fined $1,500, but prosecutors subsequently appealed the sentence arguing that it was manifestly inadequate.

The court had heard that in the afternoon of June 12, 2012, Ms Stoneham was outside ModernMart in Paget when a man she didn’t recognise shouted: “Yeah, yeah, look at me ... yeah, yeah, you got to come out into the public sometime, and you don’t have the security of the court now ... You’re wicked. You’re gonna get yours!”

Furbert, who had previously appeared before Ms Stoneham in Family Court, was arrested later that day.

He denied the charges, saying Ms Stoneham was angry because he had petitioned to have his Family Court matter heard by someone else.

Furbert was convicted by Magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo of behaving in a threatening manner and fined on January 28, 2013.

While the matter came before the Supreme Court on February 6, Furbert was not in attendance and the court heard he no longer lives in Bermuda.

As a result, Crown counsel Takiyah Burgess suggested the matter move ahead on the basis that she would not seek to set aside the sentence imposed on Furbert, only clarify the law for future cases.

During the hearing, Ms Burgess said Furbert should have received an immediate custodial sentence, noting that the defendant had a previous conviction for a violent offence, had shown no remorse and the threats were made against a female officer of the courts outside the safety of the court.

In a judgement dated February 17, the Chief Justice wrote: “While the suggested sentence of three to four months was not excessive, even a short custodial sentence was clearly required, not just to deter other offenders from committing similar offences but also to denounce conduct likely to undermine the authority of and respect for the courts.

“It ought to have been self-evident to the Learned Magistrate without reference to the authorities that were placed before this Court on appeal that in all the circumstances of the present case an immediate custodial sentence was required. The fine of $1,500 imposed was clearly wrong in principle.

“Due to the fact that the Respondent was not before the Court and was believed to be permanently residing overseas, Crown counsel agreed that this Court should provide guidance for future cases without making a formal finding that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and quashing the sentence imposed below. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”