R v Kameron Angelo McLean - Sentence Ruling

¶ 260327 – R v Kameron Angelo McLean – IND. 77 of 2025, Coram: Peters J. – Sentence Ruling Page 1 of 9 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CRIMINAL DIVISION Neutral Citation Number: [2026] CIGC (Crim) 4 Case Number: IND. 77 of 2025 THE KING V KAMERON ANGELO MCLEAN Appearances: Ms. Shauna-Kaye James, Counsel for the Prosecution Mrs. Prathna Bodden, Counsel for the Defence Before: Hon. Justice Emma Peters Sentence Ruling: 27th March 2026 SENTENCE RULING Background

¶ [1] The Defendant, Kameron Angelo McLean is a 33-year-old man who has pleaded guilty to the offence of Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm contrary to section 204 of the Penal Code (2024 Revision), an offence that carries a maximum sentence of 7 years imprisonment. 260327 – R v Kameron Angelo McLean – IND. 77 of 2025, Coram: Peters J. – Sentence Ruling Page 2 of 9 The Offence

¶ [2] At about midnight on 18th January 2025, the victim and her friends were at Bliss Bar. Whilst at the corner of the bar, the victim placed her handbag on top of the counter. The Defendant was unknown to the victim, although it would appear that she was at the bar with, and had a friendship with, the defendant’s ex-partner. He moved the victim’s purse towards him, and that resulted in an argument between them and led to the Defendant being pulled away by other patrons of the bar.

¶ [3] Some time later, at about 2 a.m., the victim and her friends left the bar. While they were outside, the Defendant approached her and struck her in the face near her eye. She fell to the ground. The Defendant shouted, “You Bitch!” and walked off. The victim was unconscious for a period of time.

¶ [4] Although emergency services arrived, the victim left the scene in a private car but the next day she attended hospital due to the fact that she was experiencing pain and could not move her leg. Her eye was swollen and purple/red. She was medically examined and discovered to have the following injuries: (i) Swelling to her left leg, ankle and foot (ii) Periorbital swelling and ecchymoses to her left eye (iii) Bimalleolar fracture of left ankle

¶ [5] The injuries to her ankle required surgery and continue to cause her pain.

¶ [6] Further enquires identified the defendant, and he was arrested a few weeks later. He was interviewed in the presence of his attorney. He gave “no comment” responses throughout the interview. 260327 – R v Kameron Angelo McLean – IND. 77 of 2025, Coram: Peters J. – Sentence Ruling Page 3 of 9 Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines for Violent Offences

¶ [7] Counsel for the prosecution and the defence are in agreement that this is a case involving lower culpability. It was a spur-of-the-moment offence, without any planning, nor was any weapon used. It is agreed that there was a complete lack of premeditation.

¶ [8] So far as harm is concerned, there is more disagreement at the Bar. The Crown submits that this is a case involving greater harm. The fracture to the complainant’s ankle has required significant treatment, including surgery and physiotherapy thereafter. There are ongoing physical effects such as chronic pain, stiffness, and an altered gait, and complainant is unable to stand for long periods or participate in activities she once loved. The incident has also impacted her psychologically, as she says that she has PTSD, anxiety, and depression, and has been receiving counselling as a result of this incident.

¶ [9] The defence submits that the injuries do not amount to greater harm but rather submit that they fall somewhere between lesser and greater harm.

¶ [10] The Crown point to the case of R v Leslie [2015] EWCA Crim 1188 where the Court of Appeal Criminal Division in England held that a fractured ankle which required surgery amounted to greater harm.

¶ [11] The defence invites the court to note that that case can be distinguished in that Leslie was also a higher culpability case and the sentence was imposed after a trial. The Court in that case highlighted that the offence was “not at the absolute top of the range, having regard to the mechanism of the injury”. The Appellant received a sentence of three years imprisonment.

¶ [12] If this were a Category 2 case (greater harm and lower culpability) then the starting point would be 3 years custody with a range of 2 – 4 years custody.

¶ [13] The Crown observes that so far as mitigating factors are concerned the following are identified: 260327 – R v Kameron Angelo McLean – IND. 77 of 2025, Coram: Peters J. – Sentence Ruling Page 4 of 9 a. The Defendant has expressed remorse for his actions and accepts full responsibility for his behaviour. b. He has expressed willingness to compensate the victim. c. This was a single blow and an isolated incident.

¶ [14] They point to the following aggravating factors: a. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol which he accepts contributed to his impaired decision-making. b. The Defendant has previous convictions. Credit for Guilty Plea

¶ [15] On August 8, 2025, the defendant pleaded Not Guilty to the offence of Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm, and a trial date was set for November 11, 2025. The week before trial the Defendant was re-arraigned and entered a guilty plea to the charge thus the Crown submits that the reduction should be in the order of 10%.

¶ [16] The defence submit that whilst the guilty plea was entered after the trial date was fixed, they would still seek credit. A trial was avoided as was the need for the victim to give evidence. The Social Inquiry Report

¶ [17] It is clear that his family background, in particular the events in his childhood concerning his mother, resulted in his unresolved feelings of abandonment which are assessed in turn to be relevant as to how he manages stress, rejection and conflict.

¶ [18] He was educated throughout his childhood and thereafter had a relatively unsatisfactory early employment history where he lost a number of jobs due to failing to show the dedication necessary but thankfully for the past several years, he has been employed by a series of law firms and now works as a corporate administrator earning in excess of $5,000 per month. He reports that he enjoys his current role and maintains a positive working relationship with his colleagues. 260327 – R v Kameron Angelo McLean – IND. 77 of 2025, Coram: Peters J. – Sentence Ruling Page 5 of 9

¶ [19] I note that the convictions that remain on his criminal record all date back to 2015, when he was required to complete community service for a number of offences, some of which were of a violent nature. As part of his sentence in 2015, he participated in the men's non-violence program. He did not appear to have fully engaged with the sentence, but I do accept that, in the decade that has passed, he has matured significantly.

¶ [20] The defendant gave some background as to the fact that he considered that his ex-partner had arrived at the bar where this incident took place as a result of tracking him and this situation appears to have significantly aggravated him. That thereafter resulted in his interaction with the victim (with whom he was not previously acquainted) which then escalated significantly prior to him pushing her and thereby causing her the injury sustained.

¶ [21] The DCR observed that he has long standing emotional challenges and was intoxicated at the time of this incident but that he has now begun to abstain from alcohol and the protective factors of his stable employment and the responsibility he takes as the sole caregiver for his son are such that they assess him overall as having a medium risk of reoffending.

¶ [22] The DCR conclusions are that if the defendant is allowed to remain at liberty he would benefit from the completion of an anger management programme together with work at the Counselling Centre to learn self-management skills and other potential programmes as a thought appropriate. Victim Impact Report

¶ [23] I shall not rehearse the content of the VIR at this stage, beyond saying that it is clear that the victim has suffered significantly, physically and psychologically, but also financially.

¶ [24] She has endured surgery, lost 6 months of work, run up medical bills (some of which are not covered by her insurance) and faces some time to come of further physical therapy before she can escape the pain her injuries cause. 260327 – R v Kameron Angelo McLean – IND. 77 of 2025, Coram: Peters J. – Sentence Ruling Page 6 of 9 Mitigation

¶ [25] In mitigation Ms. Bodden submits that whilst it is accepted that he was drinking during the time of this offence, due to a recent break up, he has since stopped drinking alcohol altogether. He has not had any alcohol since that night.

¶ [26] The previous convictions were some 11 years ago and related to an incident involving friends with whom the Defendant no longer associates. The offensive weapon involved someone who had previously assaulted his mother, and Mr. McLean accepted that he should not have behaved that way at the time.

¶ [27] Ms. Bodden also points to the fact that this was a single blow and an isolated incident for which the Defendant has shown remorse.

¶ [28] The Defendant is a 33-year-old Caymanian father of 2 children. He has sole custody of his 11-year-old son and co-parents his 3-year-old daughter. He is the sole financial provider and caregiver for his son and contributes to the financial needs of his daughter. Ms. Bodden observes that if he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, then it is likely that his son will have to go into care or to his mother (subject to the court granting that order in the Family Court), who is unable to financially support him.

¶ [29] Mr. McLean is employed at a law firm as a Corporate Administrator. His employer is aware of the matter; they appreciate that it is out of character and have confirmed that if he does not receive a prison sentence, despite a conviction, they will continue to employ him.

¶ [30] The defence accepts that the court may conclude that the custody threshold is passed but nonetheless urge the Court to pass a suspended sentence enabling the defendant to keep his employment and thereby enabling him to continue to care for his son and also enabling him to pay any compensation. 260327 – R v Kameron Angelo McLean – IND. 77 of 2025, Coram: Peters J. – Sentence Ruling Page 7 of 9 The Court’s Conclusions

¶ [31] This was an incident that was entirely unpremeditated but, it must be acknowledged, has resulted in a significant injury to the victim. It is clear from the victim impact statement that she has not only been caused significant injuries but has also been very significantly financially affected by the incident. She says “the unprovoked and violent nature of the attack has left me traumatised. I'm constantly hypervigilant, terrified to be in public places and I fear the possibility of encountering him”.

¶ [32] I accept the joint submissions of the parties that this is a case involving lower culpability. There was no premeditation and none of the higher culpability factors are engaged. When it comes to the more contentious issue of harm, it is my conclusion that this is greater harm and therefore in category two but I am clear that on the scale of injuries described as GBH that this is not the worst of its kind.

¶ [33] That is not to underestimate the impact that this injury has had on the complainant but simply noting that grievous bodily harm covers a wide range of such injuries and in this context, it is right to observe that the harm is perhaps at the lower end of greater harm rather than at the higher end.

¶ [34] The starting point for a category 2 offence is 3 years, and the category range is 2 to 4 years custody. It is my view that, on the facts of this case and taking into account the impact of alcohol and the defendant’s previous convictions, a start point of two years and six months would be appropriate.

¶ [35] After then taking into account the mitigation advanced, particularly the fact that this was an isolated incident for which the defendant has shown remorse and the other matters advanced, I conclude that a 4 month reduction is justified.

¶ [36] I agree that 10% credit is appropriate for the guilty plea entered and thus it is my conclusion that a sentence of two years imprisonment is the least possible sentence that is appropriate in these circumstances. 260327 – R v Kameron Angelo McLean – IND. 77 of 2025, Coram: Peters J. – Sentence Ruling Page 8 of 9

¶ [37] Such a sentence is of course capable of suspension, and I have given careful consideration to that issue. This was an incident that resulted in serious injuries being caused to this victim. She calls for the defendant to be imprisoned. The consequence of that would be that he would lose his employment and would therefore be unable to pay any compensation to the victim.

¶ [38] Furthermore, importantly, he would be unable to remain as the sole caregiver for his son, which would have significant consequences for that child. It is for those reasons that I have reached the conclusion that the just sentence in this situation is one of Two years Imprisonment suspended for Two years in accordance with section 21 of the Alternative Sentencing Law (2008 Revision) to which I shall attach the following conditions: (1) To attend and complete the anger management programme offered through the Department of Community Rehabilitation. (2) To attend the Counselling Centre as directed by DCR. (3) To attend any other programmes deemed suitable by his assigned Probation Officer and otherwise cooperate fully with all directions given by the DCR. (4) Not to contact directly or indirectly the victim in this case.

¶ [39] Given that he works full-time, is the sole care giver for his child and also the work that he will have to engage in as part of this sentence, I am not imposing any further Community Service. Application for Compensation

¶ [40] The Crown invites the Court to make a compensation order pursuant to section 33 of the Penal Code (2024 Revision) be made in an amount deemed appropriate.

¶ [41] The Victim in her Victim Impact Statement has indicated that she incurred medical expenses in the sum of $27,000.00. A further $20,000.00 is anticipated to be paid for future expenses. A copy of her statement from the Health Services Authority (HSA) was received. The complainant made patient payments to HSA in the sum of $1,974.20; her health insurance provider covered a sum of $17,764.74. 260327 – R v Kameron Angelo McLean – IND. 77 of 2025, Coram: Peters J. – Sentence Ruling Page 9 of 9

¶ [42] The victim was employed as a Domestic Helper at the time of this incident and her employer states that due to this incident the complainant was absent from her duties for approximately six months and therefore suffered loss of earnings of $10,800.00 due to her injury.

¶ [43] The defence position is that if he retains his employment, he is willing and able to pay compensation but will need to be given time and will be able to pay $500-600 in monthly installments, subject to being employed.

¶ [44] Since one of the reasons for my stopping short of sending Mr. McLean immediately to prison is to enable him to keep his employment and therefore pay a compensation order, Mr. McLean should ensure that he gives priority to that order and complies with it fully.

¶ [45] My order is that he pay KYD$20,000 at a rate of $600 per month with the first payment to be made on 1st April 2026, and thereafter monthly on or by the 1st of each month.

¶ [46] The defendant was reminded in court the impact of any breach of any part of the Sentence. Dated the 27th day of March 2026 The Hon. Justice Emma Peters Judge of the Grand Court