A man convicted of attacking a woman outside her Hamilton home was sentenced yesterday to seven years behind bars.

Shelton Baker, 35, was found guilty on February 3 of aggravated burglary with intent to inflict bodily harm while having an offensive weapon, after a trial in the Supreme Court.

Puisne Judge Alan Richards said that the offence had been “very serious”, and that while it had not resulted in physical injury to the victim, the crime left a lasting impact.

Mr Justice Richards said: “All persons should be able to sit outside their homes without fear of being attacked in the way that she was.

“As an older lady, albeit not a senior, she particularly should not have to fear that something like this could happen to her. The fact that it did has understandably had an effect on her.”

During his Supreme Court trial, the court heard that on October 26, 2022, Baker approached a 63-year-old woman outside her apartment on Princess Street in Hamilton with a shirt over his face and held what she believed to be a serrated knife to her neck.

He demanded to be let inside her home. The victim complied, but Baker fled after he saw another person inside.

While Baker has maintained his innocence, he was found guilty by a jury after standing trial.

The court heard that he has launched an appeal against his conviction, which has yet to be heard.

During a hearing this year, Matthew Frick, for the Crown, advocated for a sentence of between eight and nine years, stating that the victim suffered “significant emotional harm” and experienced flashbacks about a knife being held to her neck.

Mr Frick said that Baker’s actions showed a degree of planning, and the victim, while not a senior, was still vulnerable.

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

Jonathan White, for the defence, argued that the incident was more of a “crime of opportunity” than a planned attack and that a four-year sentence would be more appropriate.

He rejected the suggestion that his client had targeted the victim specifically for her age and said it was possible that his client had some psychological problems that were not expanded upon in the social inquiry report.

A psychologist subsequently told the court that Baker struggled with interpersonal relationships and had an “avoidant” personality — a condition marked by excessive anxiety.

She added that the bold nature of the crime seemed out of character, suggesting that he may have been under the influence.

The psychologist said that therapy would help him to recognise his triggers and find ways to avoid or combat them, but warned that Baker had previously seemed uncooperative.

Baker declined to speak on his sentencing.

In delivering his sentence, Mr Justice Richards told Baker he did not believe that his crime was “entirely opportunistic”.

“It was not long in the planning, but it’s obvious from the CCTV footage that you had been wandering around the area for a little time,” he said.

“I cannot be sure that you went home, which was not far away, to retrieve a weapon, but I’m sure you had observed her sitting there before you approached her.

“When you did approach her, you did so stealthily, having removed your shirt and put it on your face. The planning may not have been extensive, but nor was it entirely spontaneous.”

While he said he could not speculate about what Baker had planned to do once inside the apartment, the judge said the jury had been satisfied that Baker intended to cause the victim bodily harm.

“I am obliged to put out of my mind any suspicions I may have about what may have motivated your conduct on that occasion,” he said.

Mr Justice Richards added that while it was Baker’s right to appeal his case and it would not be held against him, it also meant that he could not receive any benefit for remorse.

Under the circumstances, he said that a sentence of seven years behind bars would be appropriate, ordering that time already served be taken account.

• 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