R v PG Ebanks

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Henderson, J.)
• Judgment Date: 16 October 2007
• Date: 16 October 2007
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)

Grand Court

(Henderson, J.)

R.

and

P.G. EBANKS

Attorneys: Government Legal Dept.; Stuarts Walker Hersant for the defendant.

Criminal Procedure-hearing-release hearing

The defendant was found guilty of murder in 1989 and, since he was a young person at the time of the offence, was sentenced under the Penal Code 1975, s.22(2) to be detained ‘during the Governor”s pleasure.’ Following the decision of the Court of Appeal in Hydes v. R., reported at 2007 CILR 152, the sentence was changed to detention ‘at the court”s pleasure.’ The defendant applied for his release from prison, arguing that he was no longer a danger to the public and furthermore, he had already served a longer sentence than the minimum recommended by the judge at the time of his conviction (10 years). The court was asked to determine the procedure to be adopted and the test to be applied when deciding whether to release a person serving an indeterminate sentence.

Held: (1) The defendant was entitled to a hearing to determine whether he should be released. He had clearly served the minimum term since it had been recommended at the time of his conviction that he serve at least 10 years, and he had already spent 19 years in prison. The forthcoming hearing should be an oral hearing held in open court and the defendant had a right to counsel, to present evidence and to make submissions. The court could impose such conditions of release as it thought reasonable for assisting in the defendant”s rehabilitation, and could revoke his licence to be at large if he subsequently breached any of those conditions. If he were not released, the court had to review his continuing detention periodically (R. v. Home Secy., ex p. Venables, [1988] A.C. 407, applied).

(2) The test to be applied at the release hearing was whether the court was satisfied that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the defendant be confined. In making its decision, the court should have regard to all the evidence, including hearsay evidence, which should be given such weight as the court saw fit. Evidence should be produced concerning the following matters, including, but not limited to:

(i) the nature and...