R v Mike Bush - Sentence

Extracted by the canary pipeline from the PDF (PyMuPDF for born-digital pages, vision OCR for scanned ones). Page markers and other machine artifacts are scrubbed for reading; the stored text is never modified. Hover a paragraph for its ¶ permalink. Selectable — Cmd/Ctrl-C copies whatever you've highlighted.

In the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands

Cause No. UNKNOWN

Between

- v -

Mike Bush - Sentence

Judgment delivered 1983-Sep-20

<table>
<tr>
<td>20.9.83</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>AND COURT</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>GEORGE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>HOLDEN</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>TOWN GRAND CAYMAN</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>BEFORE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>SIR JOHN SUMMERFIELD C.B.E. Q.C. J.P.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>INDICTMENT</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>T NO.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>LE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>REGINA V. MIKE BURKE BUSH</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mr. Gr. prosecution</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mr. H. publ</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>berga</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>MANSLAUGHTER</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>here are</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>ve.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>the</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>SENTENCE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>obs</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>sed was several sordid features about this case which shock.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>he price is horrified by some of the facts revealed. It is</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>important therefore to put these unpleasant factors into proper</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>perspective</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>no</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>cutting</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>ist's ceased's throat when he was already dead is not</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>an aggravating factor. Nor does the stuffing of the soap dish and</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>soap it was the deceased's mouth aggravate the crime of manslaughter.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>The deceased was then already dead.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>the</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>as these features were they point up the</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>psychological assessment of the state of accused's mind at the</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>time of the offence. They caused</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>no additional art to the deceased.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>is</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>the spontaneous reaction to the revulsion of what</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>out</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>into</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>it</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>cease</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>at</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>reaction</td>
</tr>
</table>

The document appears to be a legal or forensic report discussing the circumstances surrounding the death of a deceased individual. Below is a transcription of the visible text, formatted according to the instructions provided:

**Page 2**

The of the deceased's doing to him which ended the deceased's life.

One of the most important is the deceased's plea of guilty and the nature of the plea shown. Due weight must be given to that.

Another is the accused's age. He is barely 18. The Courts usually treat young offenders more leniently when the circumstances allow.

A bill of guilt has been accepted on the basis of diminished responsibility and as reported by Dr. Knight, an eminent psychiatrist. That means the accused was not as fully responsible for his acts at the time that the guilt rational person would have been. His sense of responsibility was about partially impaired. However, there is no history of mental imbalance.

One cannot overlook the fact that some of the factors which gave rise to the accused's diminished responsibility were self-induced, namely, the 4:30 intoxication. The accused himself was responsible for bringing about those conditions. Furthermore, it was well known to the accused one must be deceased was a homosexual; he had made advances to the accused's brother before. He was, therefore, courting trouble and the accused built. Wilson when in an inebriated state he exposed himself to the accused advances and allowed himself to be led to the deceased's bedroom a.m. in the morning.

One does not lose sight of the fact that a man has lost his life at the hands of the accused in gruesome circumstances. The fact that the deceased was homosexual in no way diminishes his right to life, however, the accused's spontaneous revulsion may have been. The accused is strong, lean, and so inebriated. There can be no doubt that the accused could have led himself from the unpleasant assault without killing the deceased as he did, as evidenced and does not provide for diminished penalties for cases.

This transcription is based on the visible text in the image provided. If there are any further instructions or specific formatting requirements, please let me know.

which would response be murder but become manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. That diminished responsibility must weigh in from Je cied's favour in assessing sentence, but a court must take all such circumstances into account. It would appear that the extent to which mental processes were affected at the time of the offence cannot be great as to exclude some responsibility for his action.

This is called his subsequent conduct.

I am trained that the psychiatrist has stated that the accused does not now a mental and is not a danger to the public. I bear in mind that it is not a case of assessing sentence for the offence of manslaughter where then I can be suffering from diminished responsibility at the time of commitment and I disregard the previous convictions for minor offences.

Is so or not of all the mitigating factors and the able address in mitigation not impose a sentence of less than five years imprisonment.

I am ordered. Due account is to be taken of the time spent in custody or 1765, or this offence.

20th Sept

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{graphicx}

\section*{Which would response be murder but become manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility?}

That diminished responsibility must weigh in from Je cied's favour in assessing sentence, but a court must take all such circumstances into account. It would appear that the extent to which mental processes were affected at the time of the offence cannot be great as to exclude some responsibility for his action.