R v Robert Aaron Crawford

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: Marlene Carter
• Judgment Date: 06 February 2020
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Docket Number: INDICTMENT NO: 58 of 2015
• Date: 06 February 2020

Regina

and

Robert Aaron Crawford

Before:

Hon. Justice Marlene Carter (Actg.)

INDICTMENT NO: 58 of 2015

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

CRIMINAL SIDE

HEADNOTE

Attempted murder, possession of unlicensed firearm; serious aggravating factors; category of harm; concurrent sentence

Appearances:

Mr. Trevor Burke, Q.C. with Mr. Lewis-Hall of Priestleys, attorneys-at-law for the Defendant

Ms. Darlene Oko, Senior Crown Counsel for the Prosecution

SENTENCE JUDGMENT

Facts

1 The defendant was convicted after trial by judge alone of two counts of attempted murder and one count of possession of an unlicensed firearm. The defendant entered the home of Donovan Ebanks in the early morning hours of the 4 ^th July 2015 armed with a gun which he proceeded to load as he approached the door to Daric Ebanks' bedroom. He fired five rounds though the door to the bedroom. The occupants at the time were Daric Ebanks and Errolyn Thompson. The defendant then entered the bedroom with the gun. A fight ensured between the defendant and Daric Ebanks for the gun. During the fight in the room, both the defendant and Daric Ebanks were injured. Errolyn Thompson suffered superficial cuts.

2 The defendant was eventually subdued by Dane and Donovan Ebanks and was taken outside where he was found when Police and Ambulance services arrived at the residence. The defendant admitted going the residence however, he denied being armed or discharging shots from the weapon through the bedroom door. These offences were committed on the 4 ^th July 2015.

Cayman Islands sentencing guidelines

3 There are no sentencing guidelines specific to the offences of possession of an unlicensed firearm or attempted murder in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines which assist in identifying a specific starting point or range of sentence based on the assessment of culpability and harm.

4 Some assistance is found in the 2002 guidelines of the Chief Justice in the Statement of Tariffs and Guidelines for Sentencing for Certain Offences, where the Chief Justice stated the following regards to the offence of possession of an unlicensed firearm:

“As regards to firearm offences contrary to the Firearms Law, the legislation is quite clear that the possession or use of any unlicensed lethal barrel firearm is an extremely serious offence. Under the Firearms law, the maximum penalty for possession of an unlicensed firearm is 20 years and a fine of CI$100,000. The tariff for that offence unless there are very mitigating circumstances will be 10 years. If on the other hand, aggravating circumstances exist, for instance, the use of the firearm for the commission of a serious offence, the tariff will be in keeping with decided cases and will be significantly higher.”

5 These comments predate the amendment to the Firearms Law whereby, pursuant to Section 39(1), in the absence of a guilty plea, a person found guilty of possession of an unlicensed firearm is liable to a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years. The Crown submits that the use of a firearm in the commission of a serious offence must attract a sentence that is significantly higher than the 10-year minimum.

6 The Crown submits that on the facts of this case the Court should view the defendant's culpability at Category 1, where there is an intention to cause harm here the intention to kill which is a requisite element of the offence of murder. As to culpability the Crown submits that the relative dangerousness of the offender's conduct must be considered and assessed, here the likelihood of harm occurring and the gravity of the harm that could have resulted.

7 The Crown referred to the UK Sentencing Guidelines Council Definitive Guideline on attempted murder. These guidelines set out 3 potential categories of Culpability and Harm. The Crown submitted that the defendant should be viewed as falling within Category I — the most serious offence when some physical or psychological harm has been caused. Within Category 1, the starting point and range of sentence is further defined by the level of harm caused to the victim.

• • For serious and long term physical or psychological harm, the starting point is 30 years with a range of 27–35 years.

• • For some physical or psychological harm the starting point is 20 years with a range of 17–25 years; and

• • For little or no physical or psychological harm the starting point in 15 years with a range of 12 to 20 years.

8 The Crown' submission is that: “… it is open to the Court to find there has been “some physical or psychological harm” caused to both victims based on the totality of evidence as to the terrifying circumstances of this case and the fear and trauma caused to the victims particularly as evidenced by the 911 recording and the subsequent reluctance and fear of the victims to testify against the offender. The psychological harm caused to the victims can be inferred by the Court…” 1

9 Referring to the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines, counsel submitted that the Court could also assess harm by reference to the relative dangerousness of the offender's conduct and considerations of the likelihood of harm occurring and the gravity of the harm that could have resulted.

10 Crown Counsel referred the Court to the evidence in the case to highlight that this was not a Category 3 harm case. She stated the significant evidence of planning associated with the commission of the offence was such that the Court could not find that the defendant's actions were spontaneous. Counsel pointed to the evidence of;

• (a) threats to kill Errolyn Thompson 4 days prior to the shooting;

• (b) concerted efforts made to locate the victim throughout the night immediately prior to the shooting by telephone;

• (c). the distance travelled by the offender to arrive at the Ebanks residence as admitted in the offender's statement

• (d) the offender's arrival at the Ebank's residence pre-armed with a functional and fully loaded firearm.

• (e) the use of a hood as an attempt to disguise his identify during the commission of the offence

• (f) gloves found in his possession immediately after the commission of the offence

11 A Category 1 culpability offence of attempted murder with some degree of physical or psychological harm, attracts a starting point of 20 years with a range of sentence of 17–25 years. The Crown's position is that “The presence of the serious aggravating circumstances in this case as outlined below thereby justify a starting point in this case of 30 years with a range of sentence of 27–35 years…” The Crown's position is that a starting point of 30 years with a range of sentence of 27–35 years is appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

12 For the Defence, Learned Queen's Counsel submitted that the Court should view this offence as a spontaneous attempt to kill with some physical/psychological harm. Counsel submitted...