Former Crown Counsel prosecutor Shantrice Dorset has been convicted of three criminal offences following a judge-alone trial before Justice Patrick Thompson Jr. in the High Court.
The case arose from Dorset’s dealings with her boyfriend at the time, Khyron Phillip, following the July 20, 2024 killing of Akeem Archibald in Conaree. At the time of the events in question, Dorset was serving as a Crown prosecutor.
According to the St. Kitts and Nevis Information Service, Dorset was found guilty on three of six charges: attempting to pervert the course of justice in relation to the firearm investigation, misprision of felony in relation to firearm possession, and misconduct in public office.
She was acquitted of the corresponding murder-related charges and of corruption.
The High Court of Justice, St. Christopher Circuit (Criminal), delivered its decision on August 31, 2026.
Verdicts
The six verdicts were:
- Count 1 — Perverting the course of justice (murder investigation): Not guilty.
- Count 2 — Attempting to pervert the course of justice (firearm investigation): Guilty.
- Count 3 — Misprision of felony (murder): Not guilty.
- Count 4 — Misprision of felony (firearm possession): Guilty.
- Count 5 — Corruption: Not guilty.
- Count 6 — Misconduct in public office: Guilty.
Why the Court reached these verdicts
According to a media summary of the decision issued by the St. Kitts and Nevis Information Service, the Court found that on July 22, 2024, Dorset sent Phillip EC$560 and intended to facilitate his departure from the Federation at a time when she knew he had material information about a firearm recovered after the arrest of his cousin.
The Court found that Dorset’s own evidence, the timing of the transfer and travel, and later text messages satisfied it that her actions risked obstructing the firearm investigation.
The Court also found that Dorset knew material facts about the firearm and its possible ownership but did not disclose them to authorities despite having repeated opportunities to do so. That failure supported the guilty verdict for misprision of felony in relation to the firearm.
On the misconduct in public office charge, the Court held that Dorset remained a public officer with duties to uphold public confidence in the administration of justice.
Her sustained communication with Phillip while knowing that he was wanted by police, viewed cumulatively with the messages and the seriousness of the investigation, amounted to a wilful abuse of the public’s trust without reasonable excuse or justification, the Court found.
The murder-related counts were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence did not establish that Dorset knew material facts linking Phillip to Archibald’s killing or that she sent money intending to obstruct the murder investigation.
The corruption charge also failed. The Court noted that the indictment alleged a completed offence, but no benefit was obtained or promised. The Court was also not satisfied that Dorset’s asking a senior police officer what might happen if guns were surrendered amounted to an abuse of office for Phillip’s benefit.
Investigation concerns raised by the Court
In a postscript to its decision, the Court said Archibald’s family had every right to feel aggrieved and highlighted apparent gaps and delays in the murder investigation.
The concerns included the absence of forensic examination or reconstruction of items, the lack of an update on when Phillip was likely to be returned to the jurisdiction, and the failure to pursue several names and aliases appearing in communications between Phillip, Dorset and others.
The Court stressed that the allegations against Phillip require proper investigation and eventual adjudication, without expressing any view on the outcome.
The case is Claim No. SKBHCR2025/0049, with the decision dated August 31, 2026.
The court information cited in this report is based in part on a media summary issued by the St. Kitts and Nevis Information Service (SKNIS). SKNIS noted that the summary was prepared to assist the media and public, does not form part of the Court’s reasons and does not replace the full judgment, which is the authoritative record of the decision.
