Dear Editor,
The brief report (Stabroek News Dec 3, 2025) on the Tabatinga ambulance driver, Ms. Lorian Toney, being jailed for one year and fined $1 million for a cybercrime offence is deeply troubling on several fronts – particularly the harshness of the punishment and the opaque way in which these charges are being enforced
From the police release we are told only that Ms. Toney “used a computer system to humiliate, harass and cause substantial emotional distress” to another citizen, and that she pleaded guilty under the Cybercrime Act 2018. There is no description of what was actually said or done, how long it occurred, whether there was any prior warning or attempt at mediation, or whether there were aggravating factors that would justify both a custodial sentence and such a large fine.
This lack of detail matters. Guyanese citizens are being asked to accept that a working-class woman, an ambulance driver, should lose her liberty for a year and face a $1 million penalty for online conduct we are not allowed to assess for ourselves. Meanwhile, we routinely see extremely lenient outcomes or long delays in cases involving physical violence, corruption, or dangerous driving causing injury or death. The contrast raises serious questions about proportionality and consistency in our justice system.
No one is defending genuine online abuse. All of us know that cyberbullying, revenge porn, and targeted harassment can cause real harm. But criminal sanctions – especially imprisonment – must be a last resort, and used in a way that is clearly justified, transparent, and proportionate. When the law uses vague phrases like “humiliate” and “cause substantial emotional distress” without careful guardrails, there is a real risk that it can be used selectively, or even as a weapon against the poor, the outspoken, or the politically inconvenient.
I would therefore like the Guyana Police Force and the relevant authorities to clarify a few points:
• Are officers working with a written protocol, or is this left largely to discretion?
• What is the profile of these defendants (gender, age, location, occupation), and what sentences have they received?
• Was there any attempt at a warning, mediation, an apology, or a non-custodial sentence such as community service or a smaller fine?
If such severe punishment is warranted, the public deserves to know why.
We cannot, on the one hand, say we are building an inclusive, rights-respecting digital society and, on the other, accept that a person can be sent to prison for a year for online “humiliation” without understanding the threshold that was crossed. Freedom of expression is not a licence to abuse others, but neither is “emotional distress” a blank cheque for the state to criminalise and jail people for speech.
At minimum, Stabroek News and other media should follow up on this case and press for answers from the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the judiciary on how the Cybercrime Act is being applied and whether sentencing is being guided by any coherent policy. The deterrent effect of the law cannot be built on fear and secrecy; it must rest on fairness, transparency, and confidence that like cases receive like treatment.
Right now, all the public sees is a harsh sentence against a single mother and worker from the interior, with no meaningful explanation. That is not justice; it is intimidation.