Barnes v R

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Martin, Morrison and Field, JJ.A.)
• Judgment Date: 21 April 2016
• Court: Court of Appeal (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 21 April 2016

Court of Appeal

(Martin, Morrison and Field, JJ.A.)

BARNES

and

R.

Attorneys: Nelsons for the appellant; Govt. Legal Dept. for the Crown.

Criminal Procedure—sentence—imprisonment—life sentence

Held: When deciding whether a life sentence was justified, the court would consider whether a defendant had been convicted of a very serious offence and, if so, whether he was likely to represent a serious danger to the public for an indeterminate time (Whittaker v. R., 2010 (1) CILR 29, applied; R. v. Hodgson (1968), 52 Cr. App. R. 113, applied; Att. Gen.”s Ref. (No. 32 of 1996), [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 261, applied). An abnormality of mind or personality was not a determinative factor. Previous case law indicating that a defendant must have demonstrated perverted or psychopathic tendencies before a life sentence was justified would not be followed (R. v. Dilbert, 2010 (1) CILR 10, considered; R. v. Billam, [1986] 1 W.L.R. 349, not followed). The court would also take into account the fact that a life sentence was a sentence of last resort to be imposed only in exceptional circumstances, and that even extremely serious cases, including serious cases of rape, might only attract determinate sentences (R. v. Billam). In the present case, the appellant”s life sentence was justified and was not excessive or wrong in law. The offences were very serious, with many aggravating features, and the court was plainly entitled to consider that the appellant would pose a serious danger to the public for an indefinite period. That conclusion was justified by his attitude to women and by the fact that he had numerous previous convictions, including two for...