A man had his sentencing adjourned yesterday so that the psychologist who interviewed him could give extra details on his mental state.

Shelton Baker, 35, was convicted on February 3 of aggravated burglary with intent to inflict bodily harm.

Puisne Judge Alan Richards oversaw sentencing submissions in the Supreme Court for the 2022 offence.

The court earlier heard that on October 26, 2022, Baker approached a woman outside her apartment on Princess Street in Hamilton and held a knife to her neck while demanding to be let in.

He followed the woman into her apartment, but saw another person inside and left.

Matthew Frick, for the Crown, advocated for an “immediate custodial sentence” between eight and nine years.

He told the court that, although the victim did not receive any physical injuries, she suffered “significant emotional harm”.

The woman no longer spent time on her porch and suffered flashbacks about the knife being held to her neck.

The prosecutor said that Baker deliberately used a knife to carry out the burglary, which he said elevated it from being a case of possession of a weapon.

He added that, by using his shirt to cover his face, Baker showed planning behind his actions.

Mr Frick argued that holding the knife to the woman’s neck showed intent to cause harm, which he deemed an aggravating factor.

He pointed out that the victim had been 63 and, while not a senior, was still vulnerable.

Mr Frick added that Baker’s choice to target a vulnerable person should be considered a further aggravating factor.

He said that, during his social inquiry report, Baker showed “no remorse” and “minimised his actions”.

The prosecutor told the court that a person’s home was intended to be a place where one felt at their safest, making the invasion a breach of the victim’s sense of security.

He argued that these factors put Baker was at moderate risk of reoffending.

Mr Frick said that an eight-year custodial sentence might be more appropriate, given that no property was damaged or stolen.

Jonathan White, for the defence, argued that the incident was more of a “crime of opportunity” than a planned attack.

He rejected the suggestion that his client had targeted the victim specifically for her age.

Mr White said it was possible that his client had some psychological problems that were not expanded upon in the social inquiry report.

He added: “It is true, there is no one paragraph that says this specifically — maybe that was intentional and maybe the report writer thought it was evident.”

Mr White suggested that the report writer appear before the court to expand on the observations, which could provide evidence of mitigating factors and make Baker eligible for probation.

Mr White suggested four and six years of jail time, followed by probation.

Mr Justice Richards adjourned the case until tomorrow to set a time to hear from the writer of the social inquiry report, and remanded Baker into custody.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers