R v George Martin Slijper - Sentence Judgment

¶ [2026] CIGC (Crim) 2 - IND 106/2023 & IND 27/2024 - R v George Martin Slijper– Sentence Judgment 1 2 3 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] CIGC (Crim) 2 4 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 5 CRIMINAL DIVISION 6 INDICTMENT No. 106 of 2023 and 27 of 2024 7 8 REX 9 10 -v- 11 12 GEORGE MARTIN SLIJPER 13 14 Before: The Hon. Justice Marlene Carter 15 Appearances: Mr. Scott Wainwright, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions for 16 the Crown 17 Mrs. Lee Halliday-Davis, for the Defendant 18 Sentence Hearing: 16 January 2026 19 Date of Sentence: 10 February 2026 20 21 SENTENCE JUDGMENT 22 23

¶ [1] The defendant is to be sentenced on two indictments: Indictment No. 106 of 2023 and Indictment 24 No. 27 of 2024. 25 26 Indictment No. 106 of 2023 27

¶ [2] On 13 May 2024 the defendant was convicted by a jury of all five counts on the indictment. The 28 facts giving rise to the offences are as follows: 29 30

¶ [2026] CIGC (Crim) 2 - IND 106/2023 & IND 27/2024 - R v George Martin Slijper– Sentence Judgment

¶ [3] The defendant first initiated contact with the complainant on Snapchat. The complainant told the 1 defendant that she was 13 years of age The defendant and the complainant had exchanges of a sexual 2 nature via social media, and the defendant asked the complainant if she sent nudes. The defendant 3 and the complainant exchanges photos and videos of nudes of each other. They planned to meet at 4 a hotel. They went into the public bathroom at the hotel. The defendant put his finger into the 5 complainant’s vagina, he put the complainant’s hand on his penis and there was sexual intercourse 6 between them. 7 8

¶ [4] The complainant’s mother became suspicious of her daughter’s movements at the hotel and 9 questioned her daughter who admitted to being with the defendant. The defendant was seen on 10 CCTV going into the bathroom with the complainant. The defendant was arrested and interviewed. 11 He denied that the complaint had told him her age before they met. 12 13

¶ [5] The defendant was found guilty of the following offences. 14 15 Count Offence Max sentence 1 Sexual communication with a child, contrary to section 228E of the Penal Code (2022 Revision). Six years imprisonment 2 Meeting a child following sexual communication, contrary to section 228G of the Penal Code (2022 Revision) Six years imprisonment 3 Assault by penetration, contrary to section 132A of the Penal Code (2022 Revision) Ten years imprisonment 4 Gross indecency, contrary to section 134A of the Penal Code (2022 Revision) Twelve years imprisonment 5 Rape, contrary to section 127 of the Penal Code (2022 Revision) Imprisonment for life The Sentencing Guidelines. 16

¶ [6] The prosecution has submitted sentencing principles in line with sentencing guidelines for these 17 offences. The defence do not take issue with the sentencing principles submitted for the court’s 18 consideration by the prosecution. This court finds that the following apply. 19 20

¶ [2026] CIGC (Crim) 2 - IND 106/2023 & IND 27/2024 - R v George Martin Slijper– Sentence Judgment Count One - Sexual communication with a child 1

¶ [7] There are no sentencing guidelines for this offence in the Cayman Islands. Accordingly, the 2 guidelines for the equivalent offence in England and Wales, section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 3 2003, have been considered. 4 5

¶ [8] This offence falls within category 1A for the purposes of the guidelines in England and Wales. The 6 harm is at category 1 on the basis of the sending of sexual images. The culpability is at category A 7 on the basis of the soliciting of images. Category 1A offences have a starting point of 18 months 8 custody with a sentencing range of nine months to two years custody. 9 10

¶ [9] The maximum sentence for this offence in England and Wales is two years custody while the 11 maximum sentence of six years imprisonment applies in the Cayman Islands. To account for this 12 difference in maximum sentences, an appropriate uplift in the sentence for this offence is necessary. 13 For a category 1A offence, this court will adopt a starting point of 4 years’ custody with a sentencing 14 range of 3-5 years. 15 16 Count Two - Meeting a child following sexual communication 17

¶ [10] As with count one, there are no sentencing guidelines for this offence in the Cayman Islands. The 18 guidelines for the equivalent offence in England and Wales have therefore been consulted. The 19 equivalent offence in England and Wales is Meeting a child following sexual grooming, contrary to 20 section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The maximum sentence for this offence in England and 21 Wales is ten years custody, as opposed to six years custody in the Cayman Islands. An appropriate 22 adjustment downward is warranted to reflect this difference in maximum sentences. 23 24

¶ [11] It is accepted that this offence falls within category 1 for the purposes of the guidelines in England 25 and Wales. There is raised harm on the basis of the exchange of sexual images. Culpability is raised 26 on the basis that the communication indicates that penetrative sexual activity was intended. 27 28

¶ [12] Category 1 offences have a starting point of four years’ custody with a sentencing range of three to 29 seven years custody. With the adjustment to reflect the lower maximum sentence in the Cayman 30 Islands, the court will adopt a starting point of 4 years imprisonment with a range of 3-5 years. 31 32 33 34

¶ [2026] CIGC (Crim) 2 - IND 106/2023 & IND 27/2024 - R v George Martin Slijper– Sentence Judgment Count Three - Assault by penetration 1

¶ [13] The Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines-Sexual Offences sets out guidelines for this offence. 2 For the purposes of the guidelines this offence falls within category 3B. Harm is at category 3 none 3 of the factors falling within category 1 and 2 being present. 4 5

¶ [14] Category 3B offences have a starting point of 18 months custody with a sentencing range of a 6 community order to three years custody. 7 8 Count Four - Gross indecency 9

¶ [15] The Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines-Sexual Offences extend to this offence. For the 10 purposes of the guidelines this offence falls within category 3B. The harm is at category 3 on the 11 basis of the absence of any of the factors falling within category 1 and 2. The culpability is at 12 category B on the basis of the absence of any of the factors falling within category A. 13 14

¶ [16] Category 3B offences have a starting point of three years custody with a sentencing range of one to 15 five years custody. 16 17 Count Five - Rape 18

¶ [17] The Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines-Sexual Offences extend to this offence. For the 19 purposes of the guidelines this offence falls within category 3B. The harm is at category 3 on the 20 basis of the absence of any of the factors falling within category 1 and 2. The culpability is at 21 category B on the basis of the absence of any of the factors falling within category A. Category 3B 22 offences have a starting point of 11 years custody with a sentencing range of 8 to 14 years custody. 23 24

¶ [18] In Dilbert v. R; Samuels v. R. [2010 (1) CILR 10], the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal affirmed the 25 Chief Justice’s Statement on Tariffs and Guidelines of 2002 as it applies to the offence of rape. The 26 appropriate starting point when sentencing for an offence of rape with no aggravating or mitigating 27 factors would be between 10 and 12 years. 28 29 Indictment 27 of 2024 30

¶ [19] A Summary of the facts surrounding the second indictment which involved two complainants is set 31 out below. The defence does not take issue with these facts nor does the defence object to the 32 sentence principles in respect of the guilty pleas submitted by the prosecution. 33

¶ [2026] CIGC (Crim) 2 - IND 106/2023 & IND 27/2024 - R v George Martin Slijper– Sentence Judgment

¶ [20] AA is the victim on Counts 1, 5 7, and 10. The defendant contacted AA on snapchat, adding her as 1 a contact on the 18 January 2023. She was 13 years of age at the time. AA told the Defendant how 2 old she was. She told him that she went to High School. He told her that he was 23 years of age. 3 4

¶ [21] They messaged each other on Snapchat and Instagram. The messages turned to matters of a sexual 5 nature. The defendant asked AA if she wanted to meet up. He picked her up in his car. They met up 6 on a number of occasions. AA performed oral sex on the defendant on a number of occasions. They 7 had sex on a number of occasions. 8 9

¶ [22] BB is the victim on Count 12. At the relevant date of the incidents giving rise to Count 12 she was 10 between 11 to 12 years old. The defendant contacted BB on Instagram. Initially she ignored him, 11 but he persisted. She then responded. She asked him if he could get her a vape. He asked her if she 12 was a virgin. He asked her if he could do “sexual stuff” with her. She said yes if she could have a 13 vape. 14 15

¶ [23] At one stage he asked if he, she and her cousin could have a threesome. There was no sexual activity 16 between them. 17 18

¶ [24] The defendant entered guilty pleas to the offences set out below on 7 April 2025, which pleas were 19 accepted by the prosecution. The offences to which guilty pleas were entered are set out below 20 together with the maximum sentence for each offence 21 22 Count Offence Complainant Max sentence 1 Sexual communication with a child, contrary to section 228E of the Penal Code (2022 Revision) AA Six years imprisonment 5 Assault by penetration, contrary to section 132A of the Penal Code (2022 Revision) (Specimen Count – penetration of the mouth with the penis) AA Ten years imprisonment 7 Rape, contrary to section 127 of the Penal Code (2022 Revision) (Specimen Count) AA Life imprisonment

¶ [2026] CIGC (Crim) 2 - IND 106/2023 & IND 27/2024 - R v George Martin Slijper– Sentence Judgment 10 Possession of indecent images of children, contrary to section 228A(1)(a) of the Penal Code (2022 Revision) AA Fifteen years imprisonment 12 Sexual communication with a child, contrary to section 228E of the Penal Code (2022 Revision) BB Six years imprisonment Count One - Sexual communication with a child 1

¶ [25] There are no sentencing guidelines for this offence in the Cayman Islands. The guidelines for the 2 equivalent offence in England and Wales have therefore been consulted. The equivalent offence in 3 England and Wales is contrary to section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. 4 5

¶ [26] The maximum sentence for this offence in England and Wales is two years custody while the 6 maximum sentence of six years imprisonment applies in the Cayman Islands. To account for this 7 difference in maximum sentences, an appropriate uplift in the sentence for this offence is necessary. 8 9

¶ [27] This offence falls within Category 2B for the purposes of the guidelines in England and Wales. The 10 harm is at category 2 on the basis of the absence of any factors falling within category 1. The 11 culpability is at category B on the basis of the absence of any factors falling within category A. 12 13

¶ [28] Category 2B offences have a starting point of six months’ custody with a sentencing range of a 14 medium level community order to one year’s custody. Given the difference in the statutory 15 maximum, an appropriate revision upwards would result in a starting point for the Cayman offence 16 of 18-24 months imprisonment with a range of up to 24 – 30 months imprisonment. For this offence 17 the starting point is 24 months’ custody. 18 19 Count Five - Assault by penetration 20

¶ [29] The Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines-Sexual Offences extend to this offence. For the 21 purposes of the guidelines this offence falls within category 3B. Harm is at category 3 on the basis 22 of the absence of any of the factors falling within category 1 and 2. 23 24

¶ [30] Category 3B offences have a starting point of 18 months custody with a sentencing range of a 25 community order to three years custody. 26

¶ [2026] CIGC (Crim) 2 - IND 106/2023 & IND 27/2024 - R v George Martin Slijper– Sentence Judgment Count Seven - Rape 1

¶ [31] The Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines-Sexual Offences extend to this offence. For the 2 purposes of the guidelines this offence falls within category 3B. The harm is at category 3 on the 3 basis of the absence of any of the factors falling within category 1 and 2. The culpability is at 4 category B on the basis of the absence of any of the factors falling within category A. 5 6

¶ [32] Category 3B offences have a starting point of 11 years custody with a sentencing range of 8 to 14 7 years custody. 8 9

¶ [33] As above, the Chief Justice’s Statement on Tariffs and Guidelines, 2002 as it applies to the offence 10 of rape gives an appropriate starting point when sentencing for an offence of rape with no 11 aggravating or mitigating factors of between 10 and 12 years. It is submitted by the Crown that the 12 age of the complainant at the relevant time, namely 13 years of age, is an aggravating feature. 13 14 Count Ten - Possession of indecent images of children 15

¶ [34] There are no sentencing guidelines for this offence in the Cayman Islands. Accordingly, the 16 guidelines for the equivalent offence in England and Wales, contrary to section 160 of the Criminal 17 Justice Act 1988 have been considered. 18 19

¶ [35] The maximum sentence in England and Wales is five years custody. The maximum sentence for 20 this offence is fifteen years in the Cayman Islands. An appropriate uplift is therefore required. 21 22

¶ [36] The presence of images/videos involving penetrative activity, takes the offending within category 23 A. Category A possession offences have a starting point of one year’s custody with a sentencing 24 range of 26 weeks to three years custody. Considering the difference in maximum sentences, this 25 court will adopt a starting point of 8 years’ custody with a sentencing range of 7-10 years. 26 27 Count Twelve - Sexual communication with a child 28

¶ [37] There are no sentencing guidelines for this offence in the Cayman Islands. The guidelines for the 29 equivalent offence in England and Wales have been considered. The equivalent offence in England 30 and Wales is contrary to section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. 31 32

¶ [2026] CIGC (Crim) 2 - IND 106/2023 & IND 27/2024 - R v George Martin Slijper– Sentence Judgment

¶ [38] The maximum sentence for this offence in England and Wales is two years custody while the 1 maximum sentence of six years imprisonment applies in the Cayman Islands. To account for this 2 difference in maximum sentences, an appropriate uplift in the sentence for this offence is necessary. 3 4

¶ [39] For the purposes of the guidelines in England and Wales this offence falls within category 2B. The 5 harm is at category 2 on the basis of the absence of any factors present in category 1. The culpability 6 is at category B on the basis of the absence of any factors present in category A. 7 8

¶ [40] Category 2B offences have a starting point of six months’ custody with a sentencing range of a 9 medium level community order to one year’s custody. Given the difference in the statutory 10 maximum, an appropriate revision upwards would result in a starting point for the Cayman offence 11 of 18-24 months imprisonment with a range of up to 30 months’ imprisonment. For this offence the 12 court takes a starting point of 18 months custody. 13 14 The Guilty Pleas on Indictment No. 27 of 2024 15

¶ [41] The defendant first appeared in the Grand Court on this indictment on the 9 April 2024. On that date 16 he entered not guilty pleas to all counts on the indictment. A trial date of the 15 July 2025 was fixed. 17 18

¶ [42] There were then a number of adjournments concerning psychiatric assessments. The trial date of 15 19 July 2025 was vacated pending the psychiatric assessments. 20 21

¶ [43] Plea discussions took place between the defence and the prosecution. On 7 March 2025, it was 22 indicated to the court that pleas had been tentatively agreed to counts 1, 5, 7, 10, and 12. As indicated 23 above guilty pleas were formally entered to those counts on 7 April 2025. 24 25

¶ [44] The crown submits that the defendant should not get the full discount for his guilty pleas to this 26 indictment since it could not be said that they were tendered at the first opportunity. Counsel for the 27 defendant submitted that the court should take account of the fact that the psychiatric assessments 28 of the defendant were an essential aspect of what was necessary to properly consider offering pleas 29 to the offences and once the reports were received pleas soon followed. Counsel requested that the 30 defendant be given full credit for his pleas. 31 32

¶ [45] As per the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines, “The reduction principle [for a guilty plea] is 33 employed because a guilty plea avoids the need for a trial, saves considerable costs and resources, 34 and in the case of an early plea, saves victims and witnesses from the ordeal of giving evidence.” 35

¶ [2026] CIGC (Crim) 2 - IND 106/2023 & IND 27/2024 - R v George Martin Slijper– Sentence Judgment These are very pertinent considerations in this case where the complainants are young and therefore 1 vulnerable. The Defendant’s pleas have ensured that they do not have to participate in a trial which 2 is inherently stressful for a victim. In the circumstances of this case, I find that a reduction in 3 sentence for the defendant’s guilty pleas should be 25%. 4 5 The Victim Impact Reports 6

¶ [46] Regarding AB the complainant in Indictment No. 106 of 2023, AB did not wish to participate further 7 in the process. It is noted that AB is still receiving counselling because of the offences. 8 9

¶ [47] AA, one of the complainants on Indictment No. 27 of 2024, provided a short statement in which she 10 noted that she continues to have anxiety attacks, surrounding the interaction with the defendant and 11 this has caused her to become somewhat withdrawn socially and affected her ability to trust. 12 13

¶ [48] BB, the second complainant on Indictment No. 27 of 2024, did not wish to participate further in the 14 process or provide a victim impact report except to note that the offence has had a profound 15 emotional effect on the victim as well as her family. 16 17 The Social Inquiry Report 18

¶ [49] The Social Inquiry Report (SIR) notes the following relevant matters regarding the defendant: 19 20 i. Background History: Mr. Slijper was born in West Sussex, United Kingdom to his parents. He 21 stated that he has two older sisters from the same parents and he is the third child from this union. 22 The defendant indicated that he was in foster care for some time and adopted at 16 months old. 23 He reported that he and his two older siblings were abandoned/neglected by their parents and that 24 his siblings were also adopted by his adoptive parents. Mr. Slijper recalled that he had a happy 25 childhood with his adoptive parents. Mr. Slijper came to the Cayman Islands in February 2019, 26 after his parents relocated to the Islands. He was employed in the charter boat industry until 27 March 2024 when he was remanded for the current offences. 28 29 ii. Educational History: He disclosed that he was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity 30 disorder/ attention deficit disorder (ADHD/ADD) as a child. He stated that his ADHD/ADD 31 affected his performance from primary to post-secondary school. Mr. Slijper completed 32 secondary school and post-secondary training in boating and machinery operations. He also 33 earned certification as a jet ski instructor and a Power Boat Level 2 Certificate from the Royal 34

¶ [2026] CIGC (Crim) 2 - IND 106/2023 & IND 27/2024 - R v George Martin Slijper– Sentence Judgment Yachting Association (RYA) of England in 2018. He worked as a tour guide for boat tours for 1 five years in the Cayman Islands from 2019-2024. 2 3 iii. Health/Substance Misuse: Mr. Slijper shared that he has Wolfe Parkinson White Syndrome 4 which can be described as having an irregular heartbeat; he identified this as a physical disability. 5 He expressed that he has experienced suicidal ideation and depression for which he has sought 6 counselling. He reported that the has never used illicit drugs. 7 8 iv. Previous Offending Behaviours/Previous response to Supervision: Mr. Slijper informed that 9 he has never been charged criminally but has been fined for traffic matters (speeding). 10 11 v. Attitude towards Offences: Mr. Slijper reasoned that he was vulnerable because of the break- 12 up in December 2022 with his child’s mother and his mother’s illness, thus he sought connection 13 which resulted in him communicating inappropriately with AB. Mr. Slijper noted that after he 14 was arrested, he wrote a letter of apology to AB and her family for the offence. He noted that he 15 regrets his actions. He reflected that the situation may have traumatized AB and upset her mother 16 and family. Mr. Slijper noted that the also sometimes reflects on how terribly he acted knowing 17 that his actions were towards children. He expressed feeling “awful” about what he put the 18 victims and their families through. He explained that the put them through “stress and upset”. 19 20 vi. Assessment/Evaluation: Mr. Slijper was assessed using the Risk Matrix 2000 (RM 2000) Statis 21 Risk assessment Tool, which is a tool to assess risk of future sexual and non-sexual violence re- 22 offending. The value of the RM2000 is to enable broad decisions to be taken about how much 23 treatment and supervision might be needed. Mr. Slijper’s combined risk of sexual and violent 24 offending using this tool was assessed as “high”. Mr. Slijper was assessed using the LS/CMI 25 Risk/Need Assessment Tool. His overall risk of re-offending was assessed as “medium”. 26 27 vii. Sentencing Options: “Mr. Slijper has been charged with offences of a sexual nature and a degree 28 of seriousness has been added as these were committed against multiple underaged females. 29 There appears to be the presence of deviant sexual interest specifically that of habitually 30 contacting adolescents using social media platforms to engage in sexual communication. He has 31 indicated that he is desirous of being treated in his home country as the requisite treatment 32 options may not be available in this country.” 33 34

¶ [2026] CIGC (Crim) 2 - IND 106/2023 & IND 27/2024 - R v George Martin Slijper– Sentence Judgment The Psychological Report 1

¶ [50] The court has carefully considered the report of Dr. Angelova. The following aspects are reproduced 2 directly from that report: 3 “George’s personality is characterised by marked traits of dependency, inadequacy 4 and self-effacing behaviour. He appears to lack the means for an autonomous 5 existence, being especially vulnerable to separation anxieties and fears of rejection 6 and abandonment. Fears of abandonment appear to be a driving force throughout 7 his psychological functioning. Except for the occasional impulsive outburst, he is 8 conciliatory, placating, ingratiating, and self-sacrificing. He hopes to avoid 9 rejection and humiliation by suppressing traces of autonomy, subordinating his 10 personal desires, and submitted to abuse and intimidation. 11 George has a lack of mature confidence, and he portrays tendencies to act helpless 12 and seek nurturance from others in a childlike manner. Characteristically, 13 withdrawing from adult responsibilities, he is docile and passive, displays few 14 functional competencies, and avoid self-assertion. It is also very likely that George 15 is suffering from a prominent generalized anxiety disorder. 16 … 17 The Garos Sexual Behaviour Inventory (GSBI) is designed to assist forensic 18 specialists and mental health professionals in making assessments and treatment 19 decisions about individuals with problems relating to sexuality and sexual 20 behaviour. 21 The GSBI indicates that George is not over-sexualised and does not have prominent 22 sexual problems. He uses sexual encounters to gain intimacy, acceptance and 23 acknowledgment. Sexual contact for him is not geared towards sex but rather to 24 satisfy a deep underlying psychological insecurity. 25 …. 26 Neuro-Cognitive Functioning – According to the results of the WAIS-IV, George’s 27 intellectual function is below average. 28 Mental Age: Mental age refers to the age of a person pertaining to emotional and 29 personality functioning. George’s mental age assessed as that of a 15-year-old 30 child. George thus functions emotionally and personality wise according to the age 31 of a 15-year-old male. This emotional immaturity is collaborated by the Emotional 32 Maturity Scale. 33 On the levels of neuro-cognitive and psycho-social development, the first months of 34 George’s development raises significant concerns. Studies on children in a variety 35 of settings show that severe deprivation or neglect disrupts the ways in which 36 children’s brains develop and process information, increasing the risk for 37 attentional, emotional, cognitive and behavioural disorders. 38

¶ [2026] CIGC (Crim) 2 - IND 106/2023 & IND 27/2024 - R v George Martin Slijper– Sentence Judgment … 1 Based on the results of this evaluation which is based on the psychological 2 interviews, psychometric tests, the historical background and clinical observations, 3 which are in collaboration, it is the opinion of the undersigned psychologists, with 4 a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, that George presents with the 5 following Clinical Syndromes and Personality Disorders (listed in order of their 6 clinical significance and salience): 7 Clinical Syndromes 8 296.44 (F31.2) Bipolar Disorder (with psychotic features) 9 300.02 (F41.1) Generalised Anxiety Disorder 10 309.81 (F43.10) Post-traumatic Stress Disorder 11 The collaborative consequences of George’s neuro-cognitive functioning, early 12 childhood trauma and neglect, insecure attachment style, trauma and psychosocial 13 development form the foundation of the development of clinical syndromes and 14 personality disorders. 15 George has the mental age of a 15-year-old adolescent. Hence his ability to connect 16 with 14-year-old adolescents. He does not have the neuro-cognitive ability, the 17 mental skills or emotional functionality to manage the life of a 25-year-old. 18 Considering the mental age of George, lack of functionality and serious mental 19 illness it is advised that George receive urgent and long-term mental health 20 treatment. If he does not receive psychiatric and psychological treatment his 21 prognosis is poor. Furthermore, incarceration will exacerbate his already 22 seriously compromised psychological functioning.” 23 24 The Psychiatric Report 25

¶ [51] This sentencing exercise was also aided by the report of the Psychiatrist Dr Ajaz. Salient aspects of 26 his report follow: 27 “Mr Slijper is a 25-year-old British citizen, who suffers from two mental disorders, 28 namely Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and a Learning 29 Disability. Based on my assessment of the information provided and referenced in 30 this report, I have concluded that Mr Slijper meets the diagnosis for both conditions 31 as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder. 32 • ADHD Diagnostic Criteria 33 • Learning Disability Diagnostic Criteria 34 …. 35

¶ [2026] CIGC (Crim) 2 - IND 106/2023 & IND 27/2024 - R v George Martin Slijper– Sentence Judgment It is my opinion that Mr Slijper, by virtue of his mental disorders, additionally faces 1 heightened psychological vulnerabilities as follows: 2 • Exploitation: Limited understanding of social boundaries can make them targets 3 for manipulation 4 • Naivete: A tendency to trust others too readily, combined with impaired 5 judgment, increases susceptibility to harm. 6 • Chronic Mental Health Issues: High rates of anxiety, depression, and low self- 7 esteem compound their challenges. 8 …. 9 It is my opinion that Mr Slijper’s mental disorders play a significant role in his daily 10 functioning and life trajectory in relation to education performance, employment 11 and social relationships. He has been provided a strong platform for success in his 12 life by his adopted parents, however, Mr Slijper has struggled with achieving in all 13 areas of his life. The impact of these mental health problems has strongly 14 influenced both Mr Slijper’s self-perception and all external relationships. 15 I am of the view therefore, that his mental disorders should be regarded as 16 significant mitigating factors for offending behaviour that he has been found guilty 17 of. Although these mental disorders do not remove full responsibility for his actions 18 they have compromised his ability to make decisions. I am referring specifically to 19 his low intellect, mental age of 15, slow cognitive information processing speed, 20 impulsivity, and strong need to please others. 21 It is my view and clinical experience that any risk of recidivism will significantly 22 reduce, once Mr Slijper has undertaken treatment for ADHD and psychological 23 therapies to help both ADHD, learning disability and sexual offending risk. I 24 consider these treatments to be essential. 25 It is my view that the current prison environment does not have the specialist 26 treatment and therapy available to treat Mr Slijper’s mental disorders or to provide 27 rehabilitation to reduce the risk of offending. The prison environment additionally 28 presents a significantly elevated risk to his safety compounding his mental health 29 problems. 30 I recommend that in the event of a custodial sentence, the most appropriate disposal 31 would be a Hospital Order. This would allow Mr Slijper to be transferred to a 32 medium secure psychiatric unit, to receive appropriate treatment and participate in 33 rehabilitation programmes to better understand and reduce his risk of sexual 34 offending.” 35 36 Defence submissions 37

¶ [2026] CIGC (Crim) 2 - IND 106/2023 & IND 27/2024 - R v George Martin Slijper– Sentence Judgment

¶ [52] Counsel for the defendant commended the reports referred to above to the court. She submitted that 1 the court should note, in particular, that the offences which gave rise to the indictments were 2 committed during a relatively short period from March to July 2023. The psychological and 3 psychiatric reports provided some insight into what was happening in the defendant’s life at this 4 time, the principal issues being that his mother was very ill, and he had ended a relationship with 5 the mother of his child a few months previous to this time. 6 7

¶ [53] Counsel noted that since being in custody the defendant had obtained two certificates of good 8 standing from the officers. “He currently works in the mechanic shop at HMP doing car repairs and 9 welding. He works on the prison officers’ vehicles, which indicates the degree of trust that he has 10 fostered whilst in prison. He also got baptized through the Agape Church and attends church 11 services in the prison.” 12 13 Court’s considerations 14

¶ [54] This case highlights the dire consequences for children of being groomed via social media. 15 16

¶ [55] The three young complainants, who, together with their families, have been profoundly impacted by 17 the defendant’s actions. It is telling that they each seem to want to put matters behind them and so 18 have not submitted significant details in the victim impact reports for this court’s consideration. 19 However, even with the limited information available the lasting effects are evident, with the reports 20 referring to anxiety attacks, the need for counselling and lasting emotional upheaval. 21 22

¶ [56] In passing sentence this court must address the offence and the offender. This defendant has had 23 significant impacts in his life that have shaped his character, impacted his ability to process social 24 situations and personal interactions. It is the opinion of both doctors who have filed reports in this 25 case that his offending is directly related to the mental disabilities and development restrictions 26 under which he performs. For him, the emotional impacts of what happened in his infancy continue 27 to affect his present actions. 28 29

¶ [57] The Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines states: 30 “5 The Totality Principle 31 The Court, when sentencing for more than a single offence, should pass a total 32 sentence which reflects all the offending behaviour before it and at the same time, 33

¶ [2026] CIGC (Crim) 2 - IND 106/2023 & IND 27/2024 - R v George Martin Slijper– Sentence Judgment is a sentence which is just and proportionate. This is so whether the sentences are 1 concurrent or consecutive... Thus, concurrent sentences will ordinarily be longer 2 than a single sentence for a single offence. 3 It is usually impossible to arrive at a just and proportionate sentence for multiple 4 offending simply by adding together notional single sentences. It is necessary to 5 address the offending behaviour, together with the factors personal to the offender 6 as a whole.” 7 8

¶ [58] The court has these principles regarding totality in mind as it considers the appropriate sentence in 9 this case. 10 11 The Relevant Aggravating Factors for the Court’s consideration are pertinent to both indictments 12

¶ [59] The ages of the complainant at the relevant time at between 11 and 13 years of age, is the significant 13 aggravating feature identified in this case. 14 15

¶ [60] The following are the relevant mitigating factors in this matter. 16 (i) The defendant has no previous convictions 17 (ii) The defendant has some degree of Mental Disability and suffers from the 18 following clinical syndromes and disorders: 19 a. Bipolar Disorder (with psychotic features) 20 b. Generalised Anxiety Disorder 21 c. Post-traumatic Stress Disorder 22 d. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) 23 e. A Learning Disability which compromises his reasoning and 24 processing. 25 (iii) The defendant has been found to have the mental age of 15 years old. 26 (iv) The personal circumstances of the defendant, including the consequences of his 27 severe neglect as a child. 28 (v) The defendant has expressed Remorse for his actions as detailed in the SIR. 29 30

¶ [61] Applying those aggravating and mitigating factors, the mitigating factors outweighing the 31 aggravating in this case the sentences for the offences under indictment 106 of 2023 are as follows: 32 33 Count 1 – Adopting a starting point of 4 years custody, the appropriate sentence is one of 3 34 years custody. 35

¶ [2026] CIGC (Crim) 2 - IND 106/2023 & IND 27/2024 - R v George Martin Slijper– Sentence Judgment Count 2 - For this offence with the starting point is 4 years custody, the mitigating factors 1 outweighing the aggravating factors, the sentence is 3 years custody. 2 Count 3 - For this offence with a starting point of 18 months custody, the sentence of the 3 court is 12 months custody 4 Count 4 - For this offence with a starting point of 3 years custody, the sentence is 2 years and 5 custody. 6 Count 5 – Taking a starting point is of 10 years custody the sentence is 8 years custody. 7 8

¶ [62] Concurrent sentences will ordinarily be appropriate where there is a series of offences of the same 9 or similar kind especially when committed against the same victim. I think it appropriate that the 10 sentences for the offences on Indictment No. 106 of 2023 run concurrently. The sentences imposed 11 for counts 1- 4 are all to run concurrently to the sentence for count 5. 12 13

¶ [63] Indictment No. 27 of 2024. The aggravating and mitigating factors have been identified above. The 14 complainants on this indictment were between the ages of 11and 13 years of age. The mitigating 15 factors outweigh the aggravating in this case. The sentences for the offences under Indictment No 16 27 of 2024 are as follows: 17 Count 1 - For this offence the starting point is 24 months’ custody. The sentence is 15 months 18 custody. 19 Count 5 - For this offence the starting point is 18 months. The sentence is 15 months custody 20 Count 7 - For this offence with a starting point is 11 years custody the sentence is 8 years 21 custody. 22 Count 10 - For this offence with a starting point of 8 years custody, the sentence is 6 years 23 custody. 24 Count 12 - For this offence with a starting point of 18 months custody, the sentence is 12 25 months custody. 26 27

¶ [64] I think it appropriate that the sentences for the offences on the Indictment 27 of 2024 run 28 concurrently. The sentences imposed for counts 1, 5, 10 and 12 are all to run concurrently to the 29 sentence for count 7. 30 31

¶ [65] I apply a further discount to sentence for the guilty plea on Indictment No. 27 of 2024 of 25%. The 32 effect is to take the sentence of 8 years on Count 7 to 6 years custody. 33 34

¶ [2026] CIGC (Crim) 2 - IND 106/2023 & IND 27/2024 - R v George Martin Slijper– Sentence Judgment

¶ [66] Consecutive sentences will ordinarily be appropriate where offences are committed against different 1 victims. In this case there were three separate victims. The sentences for the two separate 2 indictments will run consecutively to each other. On Indictment No. 106 of 2023 the total sentence 3 is 8 years custody. On Indictment No. 27 of 2024 the total sentence is 6 years custody. The final 4 sentence for both indictments is therefore 14 years custody. 5 6

¶ [67] Section 4 Alternative Sentencing Law 2008 states: 7 8 “A court shall, in imposing a punishment under this Law, take into account the 9 following principles .. 10 (e) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence 11 should not be unduly long or harsh” 12 13

¶ [68] Mindful of this guide, I find that the sentence of 14 years is not unduly long or harsh and is just and 14 appropriate in all the circumstances. The time that the defendant has spent in custody since remand 15 is to be deducted from sentence 16 17

¶ [69] Counsel for the defendant addressed the issue of the nature and place of the defendant’s 18 incarceration. Counsel noted that it was the concern of the doctors that if a Hospital Order was not 19 made the defendant would eventually be released and deported, without receiving the treatment that 20 both doctors agree he needs to prevent re-offending. Counsel requested that consideration be given 21 to the provisions of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, 1884. As noted by this court at the sentence 22 hearing, issues regarding the jurisdiction and power to remove a prisoner pursuant to that Act are 23 for H.E. the Governor. This court has no sentence option which could compel the Governor to make 24 orders of the sort sought by counsel for the defendant. 25 26

¶ [70] Both the psychological and psychiatric reports suggest and support the defendant being placed in a 27 secure therapeutic environment in light of his history, mental disabilities and recommended 28 treatment. As the SIR details there is no secure psychiatric hospital in the Cayman Islands. 29 Therefore, this court cannot make a Hospital Order as is sought by counsel for the defendant. In line 30 with the options identified in the SIR the further order of this court is that the defendant is to take 31 part in rehabilitative programmes recommended by the probation officer to address his sexual 32 offending and as may be prescribed for the mental health issues identified in the psychiatric and 33 psychological reports. 34 35

¶ [2026] CIGC (Crim) 2 - IND 106/2023 & IND 27/2024 - R v George Martin Slijper– Sentence Judgment The Sexual Harm Prevention Order 1

¶ [71] The Crown has requested a Sexual Harm Prevention Order pursuant to Section 45A of the Penal 2 Code. 3 4

¶ [72] Section 45A empowers the court: 5 “Where a person, including a young person, of or over the age of seventeen is dealt 6 with by the court for any offence of a sexual or indecent nature and the court is 7 satisfied on a balance of probabilities that it is necessary for the purpose of — 8 (a) protecting the public or a particular member of the public from sexual 9 harm from that person; or 10 (b) protecting children or vulnerable persons or a particular child or 11 vulnerable person from sexual harm from that person, the court, upon 12 an application pursuant to subsection (1), may instead of or in 13 addition to any sentence, make a sexual harm prevention order.” 14 15

¶ [73] I am satisfied that a SHPO is necessary in this case for the protection of the public. The duration of 16 the SHPO shall be ten years from the date that the defendant is released from custody. The defendant 17 has been advised of the purpose and effect of the order, and the consequences of non-compliance. 18 19 20 21 Hon. Justice Marlene I. Carter 22 Judge of the Grand Court 23