R v Jordan Darl Manderson - Sentence Judgment

¶ 251204 - R v Jordan Darl Manderson: Ind. 36 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 1 of 16 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 1 CRIMINAL DIVISION 2 Neutral Citation Number: [2025] CIGC (Crim) 70 3 INDICTMENT NO: 36 of 2025 4 5 6 R 7 8 V. 9 10 JORDAN DARL MANDERSON 11 12 13 14 Appearances: Mr. Andre Wedderburn, Crown Counsel, Office of the Director of Public 15 Prosecutions for the Prosecution 16 17 Ms. Amelia Fosuhene, Brady Law for the Defence 18 19 20 Before: The Hon. Justice Cheryll Richards KC 21 22 Submissions Heard: 24th October 2025, 7th November 2025 and 4th December 2025 23 24 Sentence Judgment: 4th December 2025 25 26 27 28 Criminal Law – Sentencing, Possession of an Imitation Firearm contrary to section 18 (6) of the Firearms 29 Act (2025 Revision) 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 251204 - R v Jordan Darl Manderson: Ind. 36 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 2 of 16 SENTENCE JUDGMENT 1 2

¶ [1] The defendant is before the Court for sentencing following his guilty plea to the single offence 3 of Possession of an Imitation Firearm with Intent to Commit an Offence contrary to s. 18(6) of 4 the Firearms Act (2025 Revision). The particulars are that he on the 20th day of March 2025 at 5 1428 West Bay Road, West Bay, had in his possession an imitation firearm with intent to 6 commit an offence namely to cause fear or provocation of violence at night towards Latoya 7 Lamb. 8 9

¶ [2] The maximum sentence which is prescribed by the Act is a fine of $250,000 or imprisonment 10 for a term of 35 years or both. 11 12

¶ [3] The defendant first appeared in the Grand Court on the 16th April 2025. Following defence 13 requests for time and thus after three mention dates, he was arraigned on the 30th May 2025 14 and entered the plea as aforesaid. 15 16 THE FACTS 17 18

¶ [4] The facts are not disputed. The prosecution has provided a summary which is set out below. 19 20

¶ [5] At about 7:00pm on the 20th day of March 2025, the defendant entered the Jungle Bar located 21 at 1428 West Bay Road, West Bay. He was visibly drunk. He was staggering and spitting all 22 over the bar with some of his spit making contact with other customers. He was cursing and 23 singing “f… the police!”. Some customers became upset, complained and then left the Bar. 24 25

¶ [6] The defendant was at the counter of the Bar where customers were. The victim was working as 26 a bartender at the material time. The defendant lifted up his shirt and the victim saw in the front 27 of his pants waist what appeared to be the handle of a firearm which was grey in colour. 28 29 30 251204 - R v Jordan Darl Manderson: Ind. 36 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 3 of 16

¶ [7] After the defendant lifted his shirt, customers immediately began to leave. During this time the 1 defendant began speaking loudly and said “aint nobody call the f… police, cause I know you 2 all are informers”. 3 4

¶ [8] The victim became fearful on seeing the handle of the firearm. She noted that the defendant 5 was drunk and that he appeared angry and unstable. She did not know whether he was upset at 6 someone in the bar or what he would do. 7 8

¶ [9] The victim went over to her manager and told her what she had seen. Her manager exclaimed 9 “The guy with the gun, yes I saw him Latoya, he has a gun in his waist, please call the police”. 10 Thereafter, the victim called the police. 11 12

¶ [10] On the arrival of the police, the defendant was seen walking towards the rear door of the Bar 13 away from the officers. PC Bowen called out to him, but he kept walking away. 14 15

¶ [11] The defendant exited the Bar and when he was on the rear patio, he threw an object which 16 landed on the floor. He then took up the object and threw it on a table. The object which was a 17 grey flare gun was recovered by PC Alleyne. 18 19

¶ [12] The defendant stated that he was a boat captain and was on the sea all day and he was allowed 20 to have a flare gun. According to PC Bowen, the defendant appeared to be highly intoxicated 21 as the smell of liquor emanated from his breath when he spoke and he was unsteady on his feet. 22 Of note, PC Bowen observed that the defendant had what appeared to be a large bottle of white 23 rum in his hand. 24 25

¶ [13] The defendant was interviewed under caution in the presence of his Attorney on the 21st March 26

¶ [2025] He told the police that he had come off work and visited the Jungle Bar where he had a 27 couple of drinks consisting of beer and rum but could not recall any aspect of the incident. For 28 the remainder of the interview, the defendant either answered that he could not remember or 29 no comment to the questions put to him. 30 31 251204 - R v Jordan Darl Manderson: Ind. 36 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 4 of 16

¶ [14] The item recovered from the table at the Bar was examined by Leesa Mullings, the Forensic 1 Firearm Examiner. It was tested using the 12 Gauge calibre “Orion Red Flare” signal flare 2 recovered in it but the flare failed to discharge. That flare had an expiry date of February 2010. 3 However, when a 12 Gauge calibre signal flare from police ammunition stock was used in the 4 item recovered, it discharged the flare after the first pull on the trigger. 5 6

¶ [15] Ms. Mullings concluded that the item recovered was a 12 Gauge calibre “Orion” flare gun that 7 was in working condition and capable of discharging 12 Gauge calibre flare cartridges. 8 9 VICTIM IMPACT REPORT 10 11

¶ [16] The Department of Community Rehabilitation (“DCR”) has provided a Victim Impact Report 12 dated the 19th September 2025, (“VIR”). The victim stated that during the incident she was so 13 nervous that her hand was trembling, her heart was racing and she was shaking. She did not 14 want to say anything to the defendant for him to go off. She was concerned that she would not 15 make it out of the situation alive. She said that she was trying to stay as calm as possible because 16 he appeared very unstable. In the immediate aftermath she did not want to return to work 17 because she did not feel safe. When she did return to work after a few days, she still had safety 18 concerns. 19 20

¶ [17] The victim expressed the hope that any sentence which the defendant receives is such that he 21 understands that it is not acceptable for him to go around putting people in fear. She also 22 comments that she hopes that he gets help with his drinking She said that: - 23 24 “The defendant was drinking the rum “raw”. She said that he did not chase it. It was a 25 big bottle, and he drank about half of it. Persons like him should not be anywhere near 26 alcohol. He is a danger to the public and himself when he drinks. He could not talk or 27 walk properly.” 28 29

¶ [18] The Probation Officer concludes that based on all the available information, the defendant’s 30 behaviour: - 31 251204 - R v Jordan Darl Manderson: Ind. 36 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 5 of 16 “posed a significant risk to the safety of the patrons who were present. The following 1 factors contributed to heighten the level of psychological and physical harm for those 2 present: 3 4 • Mr. Manderson appeared to be intoxicated while being armed. 5 • He was behaving in an aggressive and threatening manner towards the 6 patrons. 7 • Mr. Manderson’s erratic behaviour evoked, fear and safety concern for Ms. 8 Lamb and the other patrons.” 9 10 ANTECEDENT HISTORY 11 12

¶ [19] The defendant has an antecedent history which includes offences of Disorderly Conduct, 13 Resisting Arrest and Assaulting Police in 2013 and Possession of Unlicensed Firearm and 14 Ammunition for which he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in February 2016. 15 16 SOCIAL INQUIRY REPORT 17 18

¶ [20] The DCR has provided a Social Inquiry Report dated the 19th September 2025, (“SIR”). The 19 defendant is thirty-two years old with one son who is twelve years old. The defendant grew up 20 in a dysfunctional household where one parent struggled with alcoholism and drug addiction 21 and there was the use of aggressive and abusive language in the home. He did not attend school 22 consistently and struggled and continues to struggle academically. It is believed that he has a 23 learning disorder. From an early age he started working on boats and continues to do so when 24 there is work available. He was involved with a local gang in the past but denies any recent or 25 current involvement. He lost several friends and his brother due to gang violence which has 26 negatively impacted him. Since 2022 he has been the victim of two separate incidents of gun 27 violence. He said that he consumes large quantities of ganja and alcohol a day and agreed that 28 he would consider himself an alcoholic. He said that his consumption level is due to ongoing 29 stress after what he has been going through since 2022. He appeared to the Probation Officer 30 to be ambivalent to treatment. 31 32 251204 - R v Jordan Darl Manderson: Ind. 36 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 6 of 16

¶ [21] The Probation Officer notes that the defendant was sentenced to Probation and Community 1 Service Orders in 2013 and successfully completed both without being breached. During his 2 most recent term of imprisonment there were no infractions recorded against him. 3 4

¶ [22] Under the heading Assessment/Evaluation, the Probation Officer concludes that the defendant 5 requires mental health, substance and alcohol abuse treatment but that due to his circumstances 6 his risk cannot be managed in the community. It is stated: - 7 8 “Though it is recognised that the client has experienced numerous traumatic events and has 9 been the victim of two shootings since his release from prison in 2022 it is deemed vital 10 that his mental health, substance and alcohol abuse is addressed. This, along with Mr. 11 Manderson using his time in a more pro-social manner by attaining work and engaging in 12 other positive leisure activities, will significantly decrease his risk in relation to recidivism. 13 14 Mr. Manderson has expressed a desire to comply with any sentence imposed by the court. 15 At this time, any community-based order poses safety concerns, [due to] his continued 16 engagement in gang related activities, concerns around public safety, his very high-risk 17 factors, his risk cannot be managed in the community. Due to this he has been deemed not 18 suitable for community service.” 19 20

¶ [23] The defendant was assessed as being at very high risk of re-offending with six of the eight 21 criminogenic factors above the medium level. The conclusion is that while he would benefit 22 from intensive supervision there are concerns that this cannot be properly done in the 23 community. The Officer states: - 24 25 “Mr. Manderson could greatly benefit from engaging in Intensive Supervision services 26 where he will be supervised by a Probation Officer on a weekly basis. Supervision will 27 aim to help him change his circumstances; specifically, to address his substance misuse, 28 employment circumstances, and areas contributing to the identified anti-social pattern and 29 pro-criminal thinking. Unfortunately, due to Mr. Manderson’s statements about persons 30 targeting him, his current gang involvement, concerns raised in the report and him being a 31 victim of two shooting incidents in recent years; fulsome supervision may not be a feasible 32 251204 - R v Jordan Darl Manderson: Ind. 36 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 7 of 16 option at this time, as it is likely that his compliance and engagement in services will be 1 very low. The client has been made aware that in totality his offence places him into the 2 custody threshold and stated that he would be ready to comply with whatever order the 3 court imposes. 4 5 Note should be taken by the court of both his parents’ statement of the client’s alleged 6 diagnosed mental and development needs which could impact his ability to grasp any 7 social-educational programs offered to him. The court should also take into consideration 8 that the client has breached bail conditions by being arrested on August 18, 2025.” 9 10 THE SUBMISSIONS 11 12

¶ [24] The prosecution submitted that it is clear from the surrounding circumstances of this case that 13 the defendant’s intention was to cause fear to the victim and patrons at the Bar. Counsel submits 14 that whilst the defendant did not point the firearm at the victim or patrons at the Bar, his act of 15 lifting up his shirt and exposing the handle of the firearm in the Bar coupled with the offensive 16 words uttered by him were sufficient to cause a disturbance of the peace and caused the victim 17 to become fearful. 18 19

¶ [25] Counsel places reliance on a number of cases. In the case of R v Kevin Kumar Walters1. the 20 defendant was convicted and sentenced to twenty (20) months’ imprisonment for possession of 21 an imitation firearm contrary to section 18 (6) of the Firearms Act (2008 Revision). This was 22 at a time when the maximum penalty for the offence was one hundred thousand dollars 23 ($100,000.00) and imprisonment for twenty years. 24 25

¶ [26] Counsel cited the cases of R v Omari2 and R v Duffy3. 26 27 1 Grand Court Unreported Judgment, Ind. 91 of 2023 dated 24th May 2024 2 [2004] EWCA Crim 911 3 [2005] EWCA Crim 2054 251204 - R v Jordan Darl Manderson: Ind. 36 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 8 of 16

¶ [27] In R v Omari the appellant’s sentence of 5 years imprisonment on a guilty plea for the offence 1 of possessing an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence was affirmed on appeal. 2 He had previous convictions for resisting and assaulting a constable but none for firearms. 3 4

¶ [28] In R v Duffy the appellant had entered guilty pleas to the offences of having a firearm or 5 imitation firearm with intent to resist arrest, possessing an imitation firearm with intent to cause 6 fear of violence and making a threat to kill a police officer. On appeal, the sentence of 5 years 7 imprisonment for Count 1 along with the other sentences of 3 years imprisonment were 8 affirmed. The appellant had no previous convictions for firearm offences but had a bad record 9 for violent behaviour to include affray and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. 10 11

¶ [29] Counsel submits by reference to the United Kingdom Sentencing Council Guidelines (“SGC 12 Guidelines”) that the defendant’s culpability in the instant case is low. Counsel said that the 13 circumstances suggest that there was little or no planning on the part of the defendant and his 14 conduct was limited in scope and duration. The harm caused is submitted to be within Category 15

¶ [3] 16 17

¶ [30] The defence do not disagree with the submitted categorisation. 18 19

¶ [31] In the United Kingdom where the maximum sentence for this offending is 10 years custody, an 20 offence of Lower Culpability and Category 3 harm would have a starting point of 6 months 21 custody with a sentence range of a medium level community order to 1 year custody. 22 23

¶ [32] The prosecution submits that there are four aggravating factors as follows:- 24 25 i) This offence was committed in public at night at a bar where patrons had gathered; 26 ii) The defendant has previous convictions for similar offences; 27 iii) The defendant committed the offence whilst under the influence of alcohol; and 28 iv) The defendant attempted to dispose of the firearm on the approach of the officers. 29 30

¶ [33] Defence Counsel submitted that each case that involves an imitation firearm turns on its own 31 facts. There are differences with the case of Kevin Kumar Walters. Counsel said that it is 32 accepted that the defendant was incredibly drunk when the offence was committed and that 33 251204 - R v Jordan Darl Manderson: Ind. 36 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 9 of 16 what he had done would have caused fear of violence by others who witnessed what he was 1 doing. 2 3

¶ [34] Counsel submitted that the defendant held no reasoned intent, but only drunken intent and 4 whilst still not a defence, it is argued that had the defendant not been drunk at the time, it is 5 wholly unlikely that he would have committed any offence at all. 6 7

¶ [35] Counsel submitted that: - 8 9 “ In reality the item involved was a flare gun. It lacked the capacity to do anything other 10 than frighten those who saw it and whilst that is not downplayed by these submissions, it 11 was not an item that was used to rob or coerce those to provide their goods. It was possessed 12 in his waistband whilst he sang and vocalised dissatisfaction in a drunken fashion. He 13 simply told people that he knows they are informers and cursed about the police. Clearly 14 this was a frightening experience for any persons witnessing it. The lifting of the shirt and 15 showing the item being the act which could have caused fear from the complainant that she 16 would be hurt, through violence. It is the showing of the firearm in his drunken state, that 17 must make the defendant fall foul of the legislation. It is the showing of the firearm in that 18 drunken state, which clearly provides the Crown with a case.” 19 20

¶ [36] As to the aggravating factors, the defence accept that the fact that the offence was committed 21 in a public place and that the defendant has previous convictions are aggravating factors. The 22 fact of the alcohol and the attempt to dispose of the firearm are not accepted. Counsel submits 23 that the attempt to dispose was unrealistic. 24 25

¶ [37] In mitigation, Counsel submits that it is a mitigating factor that the defendant was drunk. 26 Counsel said that the defendant has expressed remorse. He was open and frank with the 27 Probation Officer. He is trying to seek help for his addiction which has led to the offending. 28 His circumstances mean that he has not been able to do so. 29 30 251204 - R v Jordan Darl Manderson: Ind. 36 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 10 of 16

¶ [38] Counsel referenced the cases of R v Fabian Oliver Thompson4 and R v Jonathan Samuel 1 Welcome5 in both of which following trials and convictions, each defendant received sentences 2 of over 5 years imprisonment for a similar offence. 3 4

¶ [39] Counsel submitted that it is accepted that this offence attracts a custodial sentence. 5 6

¶ [40] In an impassioned plea in mitigation, Counsel asked the Court to consider whether a sentence 7 of immediate custody is necessary where efforts are being made by this defendant to address 8 the root causes of his offending behaviour, and where he has not had the benefit of the 9 assistance which could be afforded to him now that he is an adult. 10 11

¶ [41] Counsel submitted that “in order to break the obvious cycle of institutionalisation, the 12 defendant should be afforded the opportunity of an alternative to immediate custody. He should 13 be afforded the opportunity to show this court and himself, that he is worthy of the chance to 14 change what, for him, has been a tormented and difficult upbringing”. 15 16

¶ [42] Counsel said that the defendant knows that his drinking is a problem. He was advised to get 17 help from Narcotics Anonymous, but he said that he could not stay there because so many 18 people want to do him harm. Counsel said that the defendant has been in prison from a young 19 age, just as he turned sixteen years. He has had an unstable family upbringing. His drinking 20 and aggression is part of a learnt behaviour pattern from his own parent. He has had learning 21 difficulties. From an early age he was left behind. He just wants to settle down and do all the 22 normal things but does not know how to do so. Counsel said that he has fallen into the trap of 23 gangs and peers. He has lost his brother who was murdered because of the problem of being 24 labelled from a young age. He is a young man who clearly needs help. Counsel asked how is 25 someone to be changed if all that is done with them is to place them into custody. Counsel said 26 that the defendant is calling out for change and is open to this, to breaking the cycle of offending 27 and taking a different path. Counsel said the defendant is a very kind and hopeful young man. 28 He knows that he has a drinking problem and is asking for help. 29 30 4 Grand Court Unreported Judgment Ind. No 92/2016 dated 29th May 2027 5 Grand Court Unreported Judgment Ind. No 57/2016 dated 15th December 2016 251204 - R v Jordan Darl Manderson: Ind. 36 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 11 of 16

¶ [43] Counsel asks the Court to consider a strict order which would get the defendant the help that 1 he needs and address his offending behaviour and the causes of it. 2 3

¶ [44] The Court brought to the attention of Counsel the conclusion of the Probation Officer that 4 fulsome supervision in the community may not be a feasible option for the defendant given his 5 present circumstances. Counsel then sought an adjournment for the Probation Officer to attend 6 to provide any further clarification. 7 8

¶ [45] The Probation Officer attended and explained that the only intensive treatment available in the 9 community for the addiction issues with alcohol and drugs which face the defendant is that 10 provided by Caribbean Haven but there are a number of circumstances highlighted in the SIR 11 which will have to be considered. 12 13

¶ [46] At the request of defence Counsel, the sentencing was again adjourned in order that Caribbean 14 Haven be asked to do an intake assessment to see whether the defendant is a suitable candidate 15 for in house treatment. 16 17

¶ [47] The Assessment Report received from Caribbean Haven is dated 23rd November 2025 and 18 concludes that the defendant is not a suitable candidate because of his history of violent 19 behaviours which would be of concern in an environment where he would need to be in 20 constant contact with other clients. The alternative recommendation is that he engages in 21 outpatient services at the Counselling Center and Mental Health Treatment Services. The 22 Report states in part: - 23 “ In order to effectively address Mr. Manderson’s alcohol and marijuana concerns, it is 24 instead recommended for him to engage in outpatient services at the Counselling Centre, 25 namely the IOP program offered. This intervention is deemed to be suitable for Mr. 26 Manderson because this particular program effectively assists individuals in addressing 27 substance-use concerns on an outpatient level and also because Mr. Manderson has 28 sufficient protective factors in the community, therefore is likely able to maintain 29 engagement in IOP services. It is also recommended for Mr. Manderson to engage in 30 Mental Health Treatment services, in order to obtain a comprehensive mental health 31 evaluation so that all parties involved with Mr. Manderson’s rehabilitation efforts are able 32 to have a more in depth understanding of his mental capacity and functioning.” 33 251204 - R v Jordan Darl Manderson: Ind. 36 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 12 of 16 THE SENTENCE 1 2

¶ [48] This Court has considered the relevant questions as set out in the case of R v Avis6. 3 4 i) What sort of weapon is involved in this case? It is an imitation firearm. 5 6 ii) What use if any was made of it? It was not brandished or pulled by the defendant. 7 The witnesses say that the defendant lifted up his shirt and made threatening 8 remarks about no one calling the police. 9 10 iii) With what intention did the defendant possess the imitation firearm. Clearly it was 11 to instill fear into the minds of the patrons in the Bar. 12 13 v) What is the defendant’s record? He has a previous conviction for an offence of a 14 similar nature. 15 16

¶ [49] In the case of Welcome, the defendant had brandished an imitation firearm at police officers 17 and two members of the public at night in a public place. His intention was to resist arrest. The 18 Court adopted a starting point of 5 years imprisonment. The defendant had previous convictions 19 including one for possession of a prohibited weapon, two for attempted robbery and two for 20 possession of an imitation firearm with intent to commit an offence; The defendant was 21 sentenced to 6 years imprisonment after trial. This was before the increase in sentences in the 22 Cayman Islands. 23 24

¶ [50] The Grand Court (Dobbs J.) said this: - 25 26 “27. Mrs. Bodden, counsel for the Defendant, has submitted that when looking at 27 the UK cases, cognizance has to be taken of the fact that the maximum sentences 28 in the UK are higher for the equivalent offence, That is correct. However, the 29 imposition of the tough mandatory minimum in the Cayman Island demonstrates 30 6 [1998] 1 Cr. App. R. 420 251204 - R v Jordan Darl Manderson: Ind. 36 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 13 of 16 that these offences are taken extremely seriously and are indeed higher than the 1 mandatory minima in the UK. 2 3

¶ [28] In my judgment, there has to be some correlation between sentences for a real 4 firearm and an imitation one under the section. Despite Lord Bingham’s measured 5 words, there is a strong message about the seriousness of cases involving imitation 6 firearms. In this case, the officers were clearly concerned for their safety, taking 7 cover where they could; the two members of the public must have been petrified. 8 9

¶ [29] The mandatory minimum sentence under the section, had this been a real 10 firearm, is ten years following conviction. This obviously can be increased to 11 reflect aggravating factors. With that in mind, I take a starting point of five years. 12 A more imposing weapon would have attracted a higher starting point.” 13 14

¶ [51] The learned Judge referred to the judgment of Lord Bingham in the case of Bentham7 and 15 stated that: - 16 “24. Applying the questions set out in Avis: The court is concerned with an 17 imitation firearm. Although the maximum sentence under s.18 is the same whether 18 the firearm is imitation or real, commonsense dictates that the fact that the gun is 19 an imitation one is a highly relevant factor. If the gun in question had been a real 20 firearm under the section, the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years’ 21 imprisonment, unless exceptional circumstances pertained would follow 22 conviction. However, the fact that the gun was an imitation one does not take the 23 offence out of the clearly serious category which Parliament intended, not least 24 because as Lord Bingham in the case of Bentham (supra) at paragraph 6 said: 25 26 “While an imitation firearm lacks the capacity of a real loaded firearm to kill or 27 injure, it has much the same capacity to frighten and enforce compliance, not least 28 because many imitations are almost indistinguishable from the real thing and those 29 7 [2005] UKHL 18 251204 - R v Jordan Darl Manderson: Ind. 36 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 14 of 16 threatened have little opportunity or inclination to examine the nature of the 1 weapon used.”” 2 3

¶ [52] Both Counsel referred to the SGC Guidelines for the offence of Possession with Intent to Cause 4 Fear but accept that there are differences. The maximum sentence in the Cayman Islands since 5 the start of 2025 is 35 years, more than three times what it is in the United Kingdom. 6 7

¶ [53] The Court accepts the agreed position of Counsel that this is an offence of lower culpability 8 and harm in accordance with the SGC Guidelines. Adopting an adjusted starting point of 30 9 months custody the offending is aggravated by the fact that this occurred in public place, a bar 10 and at night, the defendant has previous convictions for an offence of a similar nature, and the 11 offence was committed while under the influence of alcohol. In the Cayman Islands 12 Sentencing Guidelines this is listed as an aggravating factor. 13 14

¶ [54] These factors serve to increase the sentence by 12 months to one of 42 months imprisonment. 15 16

¶ [55] In mitigation account is taken of all the circumstances in his favour which are outlined in the 17 SIR and by his Counsel. The defendant has had a troubled childhood and has a learning 18 disability. He has difficult personal circumstances in which he lost his brother to gang violence 19 and he himself has been the victim of such violence. He is remorseful and seeks rehabilitative 20 assistance to deal with an alcohol addiction which is learnt family behaviour. 21 22

¶ [56] These mitigating factors serve to reduce the sentence by 9 months to one of 33 months 23 imprisonment. 24 25 CREDIT FOR GUILTY PLEA 26 27

¶ [57] The defendant entered a guilty plea. Counsel for the defence argues that he should receive full 28 credit even though the plea was not offered at the first reasonable opportunity. 29 30

¶ [58] The prosecution submits that not only was the plea not offered at the first reasonable 31 opportunity, but the evidence was overwhelming. 32 251204 - R v Jordan Darl Manderson: Ind. 36 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 15 of 16 1

¶ [59] The Court notes that while the defendant was still in the Bar on the arrival of the police, he had 2 the firearm with him which he tried to dispose of. However, while there were three mention 3 dates, of importance is that two of the mention dates were because his Counsel was engaged in 4 a trial in another Court. The defendant is afforded the full discount of one third for a sentence 5 of 22 months imprisonment. 6 7 CONCLUSION 8 9

¶ [60] The personal circumstances of the defendant are noted in particular his plea for help with his 10 addictions. The primary aim of sentencing in this case is rehabilitation in order to prevent a re- 11 occurrence of this offending behaviour. The sentence will be suspended for two years. The 12 defendant is therefore sentenced as follows: 13 14 i) 22 months imprisonment suspended for 2 years. 15 16 ii) Pursuant to section 21 of the Alternative Sentencing Act (2008 Revision) a 17 suspended sentence supervision order for a period of 2 years is made. During this 18 period the defendant is to be supervised by the DCR. The conditions are that he is 19 to: 20 a. Reside at the stated address. 21 b. Follow and comply with all the instructions of his assigned Probation 22 Officer which will include: 23 • Enrolling and attending outpatient counselling services at the 24 Counselling Center namely the IOP programme offered. 25 • Enrolling in and attending Mental Health Treatment Services. 26 27 iii) Pursuant to section 11 of the Alternative Sentencing Act (2008 Revision) an 28 Exclusion Order is made for a period of 1 year. By this Order the defendant is not 29 permitted to enter any premises which holds a liquor license. This includes, but is 30 not limited to, Kelly’s Bar, Pop-A-Top, La Petit, Tukka, Pappagallo, Tortuga and 31 Brooklyn. 32 251204 - R v Jordan Darl Manderson: Ind. 36 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 16 of 16 1 iv) Pursuant to section 5 of the Alternative Sentencing Act (2008 Revision), a Curfew 2 Order is made for a period of 1 year. The defendant is to observe a curfew between 3 the hours of 7pm and 7am. During this time period the defendant is to be at the 4 stated address. The defendant is to be fitted and or remain fitted with an electronic 5 monitoring device so as to allow monitoring of his compliance with the Curfew 6 Order by the Electronic Monitoring Department. The Probation Officer is also to 7 monitor his compliance. 8 9

¶ [61] The defendant is warned as to the possible consequences of any breaches of the Orders made. 10 11 12 Dated this the 4th day of December 2025 13 14 The Hon. Justice Cheryll Richards KC 15 Judge of the Grand Court 16 17