Dixon v R

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: Harre, J.
• Judgment Date: 16 March 1989
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Docket Number: No. 155 of 1988 and 4 of 1989
• Date: 16 March 1989

Dixon

and

Regina

Harre, J.

No. 155 of 1988 and 4 of 1989

Grand Court

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence — Theft — Sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with 6 months suspended for 18 months with $400 compensation to be paid — Admitted 10 previous convictions including 4 for theft, 3 for burglary and 1 for criminal trespass — New evidence that appellant attending a rehabilitation group in prison and showing great interest in it — Period of suspension varied from 6 months to 12 months — Appeal against sentence — Two charges of burglary — Theft — Sentenced in total to 2 years, 9 months and 12 months respectively all to run concurrently — Appeal dismissed.

Appellant in person.

Ms. J. Conolly for the Crown.

Harre, J.

1 The appellant Jason James Dixon was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, with 6 months suspended for 18 months, for an offence theft, on 30th May 1988, of 120 lbs of lobster valued at $1,320.00. He was committed to the Grand Court in respect of a suspended sentence previously handed down by that court. The matter of the suspended sentence is not before me in my present capacity as a Judge of Appeal from sentences passed by the Summary Court.

2 Dixon was also convicted, at a separate trial, of two offences of burglary and one of theft. The burglary offences were both committed on 9th June 1988, the theft offence took place on 27th March. It involved stealing cash to the value of some $350 from a parted car.

3 The appeal in both matters is against sentence, on the ground in each case that it is excessive.

4 Dixon was charged with two others in respect of the theft of the lobster meat. Having each two previous convictions, the other two culprits received substantially lighter sentences than Dixon, He was given 18 months imprisonment, with 6 months suspended for 18 months, with compensation of $400 to the complainant to be paid within 4 months. He admitted 10 previous convictions, including 4 for theft, for burglary and 1 for criminal trespass. It is a lamentable record and amply explains the conclusion of the learned magistrate that a sentence more severe than that imposed on the other accused was called for.

5 However, a new factor which was not before the learned magistrate was brought to my attention. This is an indication, conveyed to me through counsel and informal in nature, that Dixon has been attending a rehabilitation group within the prison and has been showing great...