Richards J
251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 1 of 31 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 1 CRIMINAL DIVISION 2 Neutral Citation Number: [2025] CIGC (Crim) 59 3 INDICTMENT NO: 78 of 2025 4 5 6 R 7 8 V. 9 10 OLISIEA PATRICIA BLAKE 11 12 13 14 Appearances: Mr. Alexander Barbour and Ms. Andrea Johnson, Crown Counsel, Office of 15 the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Prosecution 16 17 Mr. Jonathon Hughes, Samson Law for the Defence 18 19 20 Before: The Hon. Justice Cheryll Richards KC 21 22 Submissions Heard: 17th October 2025 23 24 Further Submissions: 29th October 2025 25 26 Sentence Judgment: 29th October 2025 27 28 29 30 Criminal Law – Sentencing, Obtaining Property by Deception contrary to s.247 of the Penal Code (2022 31 Revision), Application of the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines; Issue of whether a sentence of 32 immediate custody would amount to a disproportionate interference with family life. 33 34 35 36 37 38 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 2 of 31 SENTENCE JUDGMENT 1 2
The defendant is before the Court for sentencing following her guilty pleas to ten counts of 3 Obtaining Property by Deception contrary to s.247 of the Penal Code (2022 Revision). 4 5
These relate to the obtaining of sums of money from ten persons between the period 22nd 6 December 2023 to 11th January 2024. 7 8
In each case the particulars are that the sum was dishonestly obtained by deception, namely by 9 falsely representing that the defendant had accommodation available for rent: - 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
The maximum sentence is 10 years imprisonment for each offence. 21 22
The defendant pleaded guilty on her first appearance in the Grand Court on the 25th July 2025. 23 24 THE FACTS 25 26
The prosecution has provided a very detailed statement of the facts, which is set out in full below. 27 In summary in each of the ten incidents, the defendant advertised on a local website purporting 28 to have an apartment for rent which required the payment of a deposit in varying amounts in 29 order to secure the rental. 30 Count Date Victim Loss - $ 1 22nd December 2023 Anita Danso 750 2 22nd December 2023 Navehsa Christian 650 3 23rd December 2023 Stanley Wissort 650 4 28th December 2023 Esmerlin Garcia Gem 700 5 28th December 2023 Royston Peter Goes 700 6 3rd January 2024 Julia Nakashima 1400 7 7th January 2024 Charles Hamilton 900 8 8th January 2024 Johanna Smith 900 9 11th January 2024 Tanice Bent 900 10 11th January 2024 Romaine Barnes 800 Total 8,350 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 3 of 31 1
The defendant gave different addresses for the rental property including, 26 Lookout Gardens, 2 Bodden Town, 24 Cumber Avenue, Anthony Drive, 99 Ebanks Road, Vibes Lane, Mount 3 Pleasant, West Bay and beside Ryan Road in George Town. 4 5
The defendant met the prospective tenants at different places using two different motor cars. One 6 was borrowed from a friend and the other was rented from a rental car company. Some of the 7 places at which meetings took place were, ICCI Car Park in Newlands, Eastern Avenue, Mary 8 Street, Shamrock Road, the Library in George Town, Country Side Plaza, Crewe Road and the 9 Hospital parking lot. 10 11
The defendant used different names, including Kathy Phillips, Patty Sue Broomfield, Ms. 12 Brumfield, Susan, Donna, Suzan Bloomfield, Marsha, Susan Levy, Renee Henry, and Ranae 13 Chisholm. 14 15
The defendant used different phone numbers. She showed pictures of a property and gave various 16 move in dates. She gave different excuses as to why the property could not be viewed at the time 17 the deposit was being paid. 18 19
In each case once the complete deposit payment had been made the defendant became 20 uncontactable. The defendant admitted to changing her phone sim card after a payment had been 21 made so that the victim could not contact her. The victims tried to find the rental properties and 22 either the address given did not exist or the properties were already rented, and the defendant had 23 no connection to them. 24 25
Matters came to a head when Mr. Spooner, the partner of victim 9 Ms. Bent, and victim 10, Mr. 26 Barnes, who were co-workers, realised that they may have responded to the same advertisement. 27 They notified the police and Mr. Barnes arranged to pay the deposit balance of $100 to the 28 defendant in the parking lot of a supermarket. The defendant was arrested when she turned up for 29 the meeting. She made full admissions to taking money for a room which did not exist and handed 30 over $1425.00 of the money taken to the police. 31 32 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 4 of 31
Three cell phones were recovered from the defendant’s hand bag and a receipt book. The phones 1 had images which matched those sent to some of the victims. 2 3
In interview with the police, the defendant admitted that she was wrong but said that she did not 4 force the victims to give her money. 5 6 The Prosecution’s Summary of Facts 7 Count 1 - Anita Danso 8 “6. Ms. Danso saw an advert on Ecaytrade on 22nd December 2023, for a room available for 9 rent for $650. The advert mentioned a shared kitchen and living room, and had the number 10 322-9701 attached. The advert stated the address as #26 Lookout Gardens, Bodden Town. 11 12
Ms. Danso called the number and a woman (the defendant) answered. She told Ms. Danso 13 that lots of people had been calling about the room and that she was expecting a deposit 14 from them. If she was interested and needed the room urgently, she was told, she would 15 have to pay the deposit. 16 17
They arranged to meet at the ICCI car park in Newlands. Ms. Danso attended with a friend 18 to meet the defendant, who arrived in a white Honda Fit and gave her name as “Kathy 19 Phillips”. Ms. Danso indicated that her friend would also be living in the room and was 20 told that the deposit required had to be increased to $750. Believing she was securing the 21 accommodation, she paid $750 there and then. 22 23
The defendant wrote a receipt and allowed Ms. Danso to photograph it but did not provide 24 a copy. She wrote her name as “Kathy Phillips”. She told Ms. Danso there was only one 25 key and she would have to cut another. The defendant said she was the landlord and lived 26 at the address. The agreed move-in date was 1st January 2024. During the meeting, which 27 took approximately an hour, the defendant sent photographs of the room via WhatsApp. 28
The following morning, Ms. Danso received a voice note on WhatsApp from the defendant 29 indicating her husband bought her a surprise ticket to travel to the United States for the 30 Christmas holidays. She was therefore unable to meet with the key as planned but would 31 call her as soon as she got back on 30th December 2023. 32 33
On or around 28th December 2023, Ms. Danso drove to Lookout Gardens but could not 34 locate #26. She called the defendant who said the address was actually #26 Kipling Street, 35 Bodden Town. She then drove to Kipling Street and again could not see a #26 but could 36 see #27. 37 38
She returned home and called the defendant again, who got upset and told her she was 39 spoiling her vacation, before hanging up the phone. On 30th December 2023, Ms. Danso 40 realised the defendant had blocked her phone number. 41 42 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 5 of 31
Having been sent a Facebook link to an article on Cayman Marl Road, Ms. Danso identified 1 the defendant as the person that scammed her. She made a report to the police and provided 2 the receipt, voice notes and photographs to the RCIPS. 3 4
The defendant was interviewed under caution on 6th February 2024. During interview, the 5 defendant confirmed that she met Ms. Danso who paid the deposit. She accepted she gave 6 the name “Kathy Phillips”, and that her intention was to obtain money by deception. 7 8 9 Count 2 - Navehsa Christian 10
On 22nd December 2023, Navehsa Christian was looking for a room to rent on Ecaytrade, 11 when she saw an advert for a room that would be suitable for her. She had been looking for 12 a long time, and so was eager to move. She called the number in the advert (322-9701) and 13 spoke with a woman (the defendant) who gave her name as “Pattysue Broomfield”. 14 15
Ms. Christian indicated she was interested in the property. As with others, she was told by 16 the defendant that lots of people were asking about the room. Ms. Christian asked her not 17 to rent the room to anyone else, and the defendant agreed to meet to take a deposit. The 18 defendant, on request, sent four photographs directly to Ms. Christian purporting to be of 19 the room. 20 21
Ms. Christian met the defendant on Eastern Avenue, near Maxine Beauty Salon, around 22 4pm the same day. She waited for a while, before a woman walked out of the salon and 23 asked “Are you Navehsa?” She responded in the affirmative and she then understood this 24 woman to be “Pattysue Broomfield”, the defendant. Ms. Christian walked with the 25 defendant to a white Honda Fit parked nearby. The defendant appeared to be looking for 26 something, before indicating she could not find her receipt book. 27 28
Ms. Christian paid $650. The defendant counted the money and indicated it was $750, not 29 $650, for the deposit. When Ms. Christian pointed out the advert said $650, the defendant 30 did not say any more about the deposit amount. Instead, she indicated she would write in 31 her book and allow Ms. Christian to take a photograph of it, in lieu of a written receipt. Ms. 32 Christian read over what was written and signed this ‘receipt’. 33 34
The defendant indicated that now the deposit was paid, she would send Ms. Christian the 35 details of the property and its location and would arrange to meet up another time to show 36 the room and give her the key. The defendant told Ms. Christian that her husband was fixing 37 the outlet of the room, but it would be ready by 1st January 2024 and that the property was 38 in Lookout Gardens. 39 40
Ms. Christian contacted the defendant on 26th December 2023 to ask when she could come 41 and see the room. Ms. Blake indicated she was off-Island having left the day before 42 (Christmas Day). She said she would message Ms. Christian when she returned. Ms. 43 Christian sent a further message on 1st January 2024, the intended move-in date, to find out 44 when she would be returning to Island, as she needed to move from her current 45 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 6 of 31 accommodation very soon. She did not receive any response. Having still received no 1 response by 14th January 2024, she contacted the police. 2 3
During interview, the defendant confirmed Ms. Christian’s account. She indicated she 4 never had any intention of renting her an apartment. Instead, she admitted her intention 5 was to obtain money under false pretences. 6 7 Count 3 - Stanley Wissort 8
Mr. Wissort, having been given notice by his landlord, began looking for an apartment to 9 rent. On 23rd December 2023, he saw an advert for a suitable apartment on Ecaytrade. The 10 telephone number on the advert was 322-9701. He made an enquiry and received a voice 11 note from a female promising to call him back (the defendant). 12 13
45 minutes later he received a call from the defendant who told him the apartment was still 14 available, but that she was quite busy and there were lots of people calling. On that basis, 15 Mr. Wissort was told, if he was interested, he should make a deposit. There were no 16 photographs of the apartment on the advert, and so the defendant sent Mr. Wissort six 17 photographs. 18 19
Mr. Wissort agreed to pay the deposit. The rental price was not on the advert, but he was 20 told by the defendant it was $750 per month, including electric, water and Flow internet. 21 Mr. Wissort was told the unit had a dishwasher and the deposit was $650. 22 23
Mr. Wissort met the defendant by Uncle Clems store and gave her $650. She provided a 24 pre-written receipt to write his name and signature on. She told Mr. Wissort that she was 25 renting the apartment on behalf of a lady who was off-island and returning on 30th 26 December 2023. The other lady had the key, she said, and so she could not show the 27 apartment until she returned. 28 29
A friend that accompanied Mr. Wissort noted that the receipt did not state an address or a 30 name for the defendant. Ms. Blake wrote on the receipt “#24 Cumber Avenue” and told 31 them her name was “Ms. Brumfield”. 32 33
From 30th December 2023 to 1st January 2024, Mr. Wissort tried to reach “Ms. Brumfield” 34 by telephone and WhatsApp, but was unable to. He checked Ecaytrade, and the advert had 35 been taken down. He subsequently made a report to the police on 1st January 2024. 36 37
During interview, the defendant indicated she could not recall Mr. Wissort. When told of 38 the circumstances she said that pretty much everything Mr. Wissort’s statement was true. 39 She confirmed the meeting at Uncle Clems, and that she collected $650.00 from him. The 40 defendant said her intention was to take the money from him and keep it. When asked if 41 she had an intention of renting him an apartment, she said “no”. 42 43 44 45 46 47 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 7 of 31 Count 4 - Esmerlin Garcia Gem 1 2
Ms. Gem was looking for a new apartment, when on 28th December 2023 she saw an advert 3 on Ecaytrade for a one-bedroom studio apartment. The rate was $950 per month (for a 4 single person), with a deposit of $700. The advert gave the contact as “Susan”, and a 5 telephone number 322-9670. The advert stated the apartment was available in two weeks. 6 There were no pictures, but it was said to be on Anthony Drive. 7 8
Ms. Gem called the number straight away, and a woman (the defendant) answered and 9 identified herself as “Susan”. The defendant told Ms. Gem that two more people were 10 interested in the apartment. As a result, Ms. Gem said she wanted to view the apartment. 11 12
The defendant told Ms. Gem she was at the Party Store, across from Cotton Club, and told 13 her to hurry as she would not be there for long. Ms. Gem called her friend Steve to take 14 her. When she arrived, she called the defendant who was in a blue Honda Fit car, plate 15 number 222 224. Ms. Gem asked Steve to video the interaction as she did not want to get 16 scammed. She had been scammed before and was paranoid. 17 18
Ms. Gem approached the car and spoke with the defendant, telling her she wanted to view 19 the place. The defendant told her it was on Anthony Drive, that it was the yellow 20 apartments, and that she could not show the place at the moment as there were tenants in 21 situ. She told Ms. Gem she had no internet on her phone but would send pictures later. She 22 took out a receipt book and told her she would give her a receipt for the deposit, which she 23 would have to pay if she wanted to secure the place. She was told she could move in on 24 15th January 2024. 25 26
Ms. Gem agreed and paid $700 to the defendant, who wrote a receipt which Ms. Gem 27 signed. Pictures were later sent purporting to be of the apartment. 28 29
On 31st December 2023, the defendant sent a message via WhatsApp to Ms. Gem 30 reminding her that the apartment was not available until 15th January 2024, when she must 31 pay the rent of $950. She told Ms. Gem she would be in touch between 12-14th January to 32 arrange to collect this money. Ms. Gem responded to say she would pay the rent when she 33 received keys. 34 35
Ms. Gem tried to contact the defendant on 10th January 2024, but the message did not go 36 through. It appeared that she had been blocked. She tried to find other contact details for 37 “Susan”, and, in the course of doing so, found the Cayman Marl Road article referring to 38 the defendant as the perpetrator of rental scams. Ms. Gem recognised the defendant as 39 “Susan”, with whom she had dealt. 40 41
In interview, the defendant indicated she could not recall Ms. Gem. When she was told the 42 location she met her, however, she remembered their interaction. She confirmed she took 43 $700 from Ms. Gem for an apartment on Anthony Drive which did not exist. 44 45 46 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 8 of 31 1 Count 5 - Royston Peter Goes 2
On 27th December 2023, Mr. Goes saw an advert on Ecaytrade for a one-bedroom studio 3 apartment. There was no address, but the advert indicated it was in George Town. He spoke 4 with a woman (the defendant) on the number provided, being 322-9670. She told him the 5 apartment was on Anthony Drive, but she could not show him the apartment at the time as 6 tenants remained in situ. She arranged to meet him the following day to receive the deposit. 7 8
Mr. Goes met the defendant on 28th December 2023, in the car park of the Seventh Day 9 Adventist Church on the corner of Smith Road and Hospital Road. She said her name was 10 “Donna”, and that a deposit of $700 was required to secure the room, with rent of $900 due 11 before the move-in date of 1st February 2024. 12 13
Mr. Goes paid $700 in cash and received a receipt. He asked if it was possible to see the 14 apartment from the outside, but she told him she did not have time as she had to drop her 15 kids to school. After he left, the defendant sent Mr. Goes a message thanking him for the 16 deposit, and indicating she would contact him on 31st January 2024 for the apartment key 17 and first month’s rent. 18 19
On 18th January, Mr. Goes was off-Island but saw a post on Cayman Marl Road about a 20 rental scam. He saw the photograph of the woman said to be the perpetrator and recognised 21 her as “Donna”, with whom he had met and paid $700. He contacted the police, and, when 22 back on-Island the following day, attended the police station to make a report. 23 24
In interview, Ms. Blake confirmed she recalled her interactions with Mr. Goes. She said 25 that he wanted to pay her the deposit and rent, but that she only took the deposit as she 26 knew that in the back of her mind what she was doing was wrong. She admitted giving him 27 a false name and that her intention was to obtain money from him using false information. 28 When asked if she had anything else to say, she apologised and said she made a huge 29 mistake. She said she would give all the people their money back if she could, and 30 apologise. She knew it was wrong and is not proud of it. 31 32 33 Count 6 - Julia Nakashima 34 35
On 1st January 2024, Ms. Nakashima saw an advert on Ecaytrade for a rental property at 36 #99 Ebanks Road. The rent was $700. There were no photographs, except a sign that 37 showed “For Rent”. She sent a message to the contact number provided (322-9664) which 38 had the name “readsky Ecay”. She communicated with a woman (the defendant) via 39 WhatsApp who gave her name as “Suzan Bloomfield”. They agreed to meet for the 40 payment of a deposit. 41 42
On 3rd January 2024, Ms. Nakashima met the defendant next to the library in George Town, 43 by the bus parking. The defendant attended driving a blue Honda Fit, plate number 222 44
She paid her $1,400 for the deposit and first month’s rent. She signed a rental 45 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 9 of 31 agreement electronically and sent it to the defendant. She arranged to view the apartment 1 on 25th January 2024, and move in on 31st January 2024, when previous tenants moved out. 2 3
Ms. Nakashima tried to contact the defendant multiple times after that, with no success. 4 She went to Ebanks Road but could not locate #99. There was no property matching the 5 description from the advert. After further attempts to contact the defendant, Ms. Nakashima 6 made a report to the police. 7 8
In interview, Ms. Blake said she knew about Ms. Nakashima, who works as a chef. After 9 describing how persistent Ms. Nakashima was in wanting to rent the room, Ms. Blake 10 chuckled. Upon being asked what was on her mind by DC White, Ms. Blake responded: 11 12 “Um, its just, it, (like I said) I don't want to give myself right in what I did or any 13 of what I'm, any of what I did was right. It shouldn't have been done; its wrong 14 either way. But, I didn't ring these people's arms, or I didn't force dem to give me 15 money, I didn't put a gun to their heads, or say give me your money. I told dem the 16 place wasn't ready, you can't see it, Ms. Julia was one ah dem, persisted to want to 17 pay for the place even though she knew she could not see the place. Even though 18 she could not verify that I had an apartment for rent. She had, she had, she had full 19 knowledge, this was a verification that she was not gonna see an apartment. And, 20 she wanted to pay for this apartment, she wanted to meet up with me. She came on 21 her own free will; I didn't drag her there". 22 23 DC White said to her "So, you're saying she is to be blamed?" 24 25 Ms. Blake replied "No! That's what I said, I did say that it does not say that I'm 26 right, or what I did. But I'm just, these are thoughts in my head! That, (sigh), I 27 didn't force, I didn't force these people; I mislead dem, but I didn't force dem to 28 give me money". 29 30
Ms. Blake admitted to taking $1,400 from Ms. Nakashima for an apartment that 31 did not exist. 32 33 34 Count 7- Charles Hamilton 35 36
On 7th January 2024, Charles Hamilton saw an advert on Ecaytrade for an 37 apartment in Mount Pleasant, West Bay. The advert only had a photograph of a 38 closet with some clothes hangers. The advert did not say precisely where in Mount 39 Pleasant the apartment was, so he called the contact number on the advert (322- 40 9324) to find out. 41 42
After trying a few times with no response, around 20 minutes later the defendant 43 answered. She told him she could send other photographs on WhatsApp, and 44 proceeded to send five more, including of a bedroom, bathroom and kitchen. She 45 said the apartment was on Vibes Lane and provided directions. She said someone 46 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 10 of 31 was inside the apartment so he could not view it, but the tenant was going on 1 rollover at the end of the month and so it could be viewed after 1st February 2024. 2 3
Mr. Hamilton told the defendant he was still interested and wanted to pay the 4 deposit, but he was in Bodden Town without access to a vehicle. She told him he 5 could pay a deposit of $850, and pay rent on 1st February 2024. 6 7
He shared the information with his girlfriend, Zoweth Marshall, who told him it 8 sounded good and would call her father for a loan to pay the deposit. The 9 arrangement was made, and Mr. Hamilton borrowed $1000 from his girlfriend’s 10 father. 11 12
He contacted the defendant again, who told Mr. Hamilton she was in Savannah. 13 Mr. Hamilton asked to meet by Countryside Fosters, but the defendant said it was 14 too busy, and to meet by the AL Thompson side instead. She directed him to her 15 blue Honda Fit by the Dragon Inn restaurant. When Mr Hamilton arrived, she told 16 him she was called “Marsha”. 17 18
During their conversation, the defendant told Mr. Hamilton she had removed the 19 advert from Ecaytrade because he had agreed to meet her. She said she had another 20 advert for an apartment in Prospect, but she deleted it because she received about 21 20 calls and it was driving her crazy. Mr. Hamilton handed over $900, but did not 22 have exact change for $850. The defendant agreed to carry $50 towards the first 23 month’s rent. Mr. Hamilton was given a receipt with the defendant’s name as 24 “Marsha Williams”. 25 26
On 8th January 2024, a co-worker told Mr. Hamilton he was looking for an 27 apartment. Mr. Hamilton told his co-worker about the defendant, and indicated she 28 had another apartment for rent in Prospect. His co-worker contacted the defendant 29 and Mr. Hamilton observed a very similar conversation to the one he had had. She 30 promised to send his co-worker photographs. Later that day, his co-worker jokingly 31 showed Mr. Hamilton the photographs saying they looked similar to his apartment. 32 It transpired that they were the exact same five photographs. 33 34
Mr. Hamilton told his girlfriend and they were both suspicious. However, they 35 decided that the photographs could have been sent in error, and that they would 36 wait for 1st February. 37 38
Mr. Hamilton’s girlfriend later sent him the article from Cayman Marl Road, which 39 led him to contact the police. 40 41
In interview, Ms. Blake accepted taking a deposit from Mr. Hamilton for an 42 apartment that did not exist, and sending him photographs as described. 43 44 45 46 47 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 11 of 31 Count 8 - Johanna Smith 1 2
On 5th January 2024, Ms. Smith was looking for an apartment on Ecaytrade when 3 she saw an advert for a studio apartment for rent in Vibes Lane, West Bay, for $975 4 including utilities. The advert had a single photo of a bed and a telephone contact 5 listed as 322-9324. She spoke to her friend Odelia Brown, who had also seen the 6 advert, and they decided to rent the apartment together. Ms Smith sent a message 7 to the seller on Ecaytrade, and then called the number. She spoke to a woman (the 8 defendant) who gave her name as “Susan Levy”. The defendant, upon being told 9 Ms. Smith was interested, said she had spoken with her husband who said she 10 could rent the apartment to Ms. Smith for $900. 11 12
There was an exchange of messages on 7th January, with further photographs sent 13 by the defendant, who asked Ms. Smith if she was ready to pay. She indicated the 14 rent was $900, and the deposit was also $900. Only the deposit was required for 15 now. Ms. Smith spoke to her friend, who gave her $300 towards the deposit, with 16 an agreement to pay the extra $150 back to Ms. Smith if she put up $600. 17 18
Ms. Smith messaged the defendant on 8th January 2024, who asked for her details 19 to include on the receipt. They arranged to meet by the park on Vibes Lane. The 20 defendant said to look out for a blue Honda Fit. 21 22
They met at 2.30pm inside an apartment complex, and the defendant pointed out 23 apartment #4, but indicated she could not show it currently as other people were in 24 there. She said she would get the key at the end of the month and get the apartment 25 cleaned ready for them to move in. 26 27
Ms. Smith then gave the defendant $900 and received a receipt in return. The 28 receipt was signed by the defendant as “Susan Levy”. 29 30 31
The following day, Ms. Smith told her boyfriend she had paid for an apartment. 32 He told her there were a lot of scams and that she should check this was not one of 33 them. This made Ms. Smith worried, and so on 13th January 2024 she sent a 34 message to the defendant but did not receive any response. She tried to call the 35 number but it was disconnected. Her boyfriend told her to contact Sandra Hill, of 36 Cayman Marl Road, for help. She was sent a photograph of the defendant by 37 Cayman Marl Road, and Ms. Smith recognised her as being the person that 38 scammed her and went by the name “Susan”. 39 40
Ms. Smith went back to the apartment complex on Vibes Lane, West Bay. She 41 knocked on the door of apartment #4 and spoke with the occupants. They told her 42 their landlord was male, and that they had no plans to move out anytime soon. As 43 a result, Ms. Smith contacted the police. 44 45
In interview, Ms. Blake recalled her interactions with Ms. Smith. She confirmed 46 that her intention was to obtain her money by falsely advertising an apartment for 47 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 12 of 31 rent that did not exist. She accepted pointing out apartment #4 to Ms. Smith, and 1 admitted that she changed her SIM card the day after meeting with her. She did so 2 because she did not want Ms. Smith to have any further contact with her. 3 4 5 Count 9 - Tanice Bent 6 7
On 10th January 2024, Tanice Bent was sent a link via WhatsApp by her boyfriend, 8 Garnett Spooner, to an Ecaytrade advert for a two-bedroom, two-bathroom 9 apartment. The advert stated that there was one room available with its own 10 bathroom, with a shared kitchen, living room and washroom. 11 12
The advert indicated that the advertiser was female and had a son. The amount 13 sought was $800 for a single person or $900 for a couple. Based on the advert, she 14 sent a message to 322-9985 expressing her interest. 15 16
When the defendant responded, she said the room was available but she would not 17 be able to view the room until 25th January 2024, but could move in on 1st February 18
She indicated she required a deposit of $900. They arranged to meet on 11th 19 January 2024 to pay the deposit. 20 21
Ms. Bent and the defendant met at Panton Place on Crewe Road in the late 22 afternoon on 11th January. The defendant arrived in a light blue Honda Fit, plate 23 number 222 224. Ms. Bent paid $900 to the defendant, who wrote a receipt using 24 the name “Renee Henry”. She told Ms. Bent she had to clean the apartment and 25 would contact her. She said the house was a blue and white house on Crewe Road, 26 #545. 27 28
When Ms. Bent spoke to Mr Spooner that evening, and provided details of their 29 meeting, Mr Spooner became concerned the defendant was a scammer. He advised 30 Ms. Bent to ask for a copy of her ID. Ms. Bent sent a request to the defendant by 31 message, but the defendant took offence and said she did not need to provide it. 32 33
As a result, Ms. Bent made a complaint to the police on 13th January 2024. 34 35
During interview, the defendant said she knew exactly about Ms. Bent, and 36 confirmed she met her, took her deposit of $900 and wrote a receipt with a false 37 name, “Renee Henry”. She was shown the Ecaytrade advert and admitted posting 38 it. She confirmed her intention was to obtain money from Ms. Bent using false 39 information. 40 41 Count 10 - Romaine Barnes 42
On 10th January 2024, Mr. Barnes and his girlfriend, Safon Campbell, were looking 43 for an apartment on Ecaytrade. They saw the same advert as Tanice Bent and 44 Garnett Spooner. Mr Barnes sent an enquiry via WhatsApp to the number on the 45 advert (322-9985). 46 47 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 13 of 31
On 11th January, he and his girlfriend called the defendant and arranged to meet 1 and pay the deposit. They met at 7pm on 12th January 2025 in the parking lot of 2 the George Town Hospital. The defendant arrived in a blue Honda Fit, plate 3 number 222 224. He gave the defendant $800, of a total $900 deposit, and she 4 provided a receipt with the name “Renae Chisolm”. She told them the apartment 5 was located in a blue and white building beside Ryan Road. 6 7
Mr. Barnes became suspicious when he had a conversation with his co-worker, 8 Garnett Spooner, and it appeared they had each responded to the same advert and 9 paid a deposit. 10 11
Having notified the police of this, and in order to assist them, Mr. Barnes arranged 12 to meet the defendant to hand over the remaining $100. They met at the Kirk 13 Market parking lot and the defendant arrived in the same vehicle as previously. 14 The police were notified and Ms. Blake was arrested. 15 16
During interview, Ms. Blake indicated she felt Mr. Barnes never intended to rent 17 any room, but instead was conspiring to trap her because of his friendship with Mr. 18 Spooner, which she heard reference to when in the Kirk’s car park. She also felt 19 that at the first meeting in the GTH car park, Ms. Campbell was asking too many 20 questions. She told police she should have gone with her gut, but accepted that she 21 was in the wrong. Even though they were only there to capture her, she said, she 22 admitted taking their money for a room that did not exist, and providing a false 23 name.” 24 25 VICTIM IMPACT REPORT 26 27
The Department of Community Rehabilitation (“DCR”) has provided a Victim Impact Report 28 (“VIR”) from Tanice Bent dated 15th September 2025. The Probation Officer’s assessment is that 29 this victim was impacted psychologically, emotionally and financially. She had to spend an extra 30 month in her previous flat which caused her inconvenience and additional expenses. It has taken 31 some time for her to recover financially. It has affected her ability to trust people, and she is more 32 cautious. She requests compensation in the sum of $900. 33 34
The VIR in relation to Royston Goes is dated the 14th October 2025. He reports that after the 35 incident he was depressed and worried about where he would live. He was unable to focus at 36 work. He had to borrow money from friends in order to pay his landlord for the additional days 37 that he had to stay at that property. The Probation Officer concludes that he was affected 38 financially and psychologically. 39 40 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 14 of 31
The VIR in relation to Ms. Christian and Ms. Danso is dated 15th September 2025. Both speak of 1 the financial impact on them. Ms. Christian said that she had to rely on assistance from a family 2 member in order to have a place to stay until she was able to save money. Ms. Danso said that 3 she had to rely on the help of friends in order not to be homeless. Both indicated that they work 4 for salaries at the lower end of the minimum wage scale and thus that saving money is not as easy 5 for them as it is for others. 6 7
The Probation Officer’s assessment is that based on the information garnered the victims were 8 significantly financially impacted. 9 10
Both victims seek compensation. 11 12 ANTECEDENT HISTORY 13 14
The Prosecution submitted that the Court should take into account certain previous offending. 15 The Court accepts the submissions of the defence that this offending though similar is twenty- 16 five years old and is spent pursuant to the Criminal Records (Spent Convictions) Act (2018 17 Revision). Consequently, these are not taken into account as part of this sentencing. 18 19 SOCIAL INQUIRY REPORT 20 21
The DCR has provided a Social Inquiry Report dated 22nd September 2025 (“SIR”). The Court 22 has read the report in its entirety and takes into account everything said therein in favour of the 23 defendant. 24 25
The defendant is forty-three years old and the mother of five children. Three of the five are adults 26 who are employed and the two younger children are fifteen and six years old. 27 28
The defendant described to the Probation Officer a childhood in an unstable and unsafe 29 environment with a mother who had alcohol issues. At different periods the defendant resided 30 with different family members and says that she was subjected to abuse and neglect in these home 31 environments. She had difficulties in school due to delinquent behaviours, frequent absconding 32 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 15 of 31 and being bullied. She did not complete High School having been expelled. She entered the work 1 force at the early age of fifteen and worked at various jobs with intermittent and longer breaks 2 until May 2025. There were multiple terminations from jobs and a few from which she resigned. 3 4
She is currently unemployed and is supported by the Department of Financial Assistance and by 5 interim child support payments from her husband. 6 7
She was married for eight years but following a deterioration in the relationship, there has been 8 a separation for about two years. Divorce proceedings are under way. Her youngest child is 9 autistic, and she is concerned that if she is sentenced to custody, there would be no available 10 childcare arrangements for him. 11 12
She has been diagnosed with a chronic illness and has been prescribed medication for managing 13 anxiety. 14 15
Under the heading Attitude Towards the Offence, the defendant is recorded as attributing the 16 offence to the financial neglect of her husband and lack of support in her marriage. The defendant 17 states that her actions were motivated by a desire to meet her personal needs and provide for her 18 children. She states that: - 19 20 “…she initially posted a legitimate rental advertisement on Ecay Trade for a spare 21 room in her home. She noted that she was successful in securing a tenant; however, 22 from this experience, she developed the idea to create false listings. She admitted 23 to posting multiple fraudulent advertisements, using different email addresses, 24 SIM cards, and varied contact information, along with different photographs for 25 each listing. She reported communicating with victims via WhatsApp, collecting 26 only deposits (not full rent), and providing receipts using false names. She also 27 disclosed that she used rental cars to meet victims in different locations, but 28 emphasised that the vehicle owners were unaware of her activities.” 29 30
The defendant acknowledged that the victims did not deserve to be deceived and admitted that 31 she had misused their trust. 32 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 16 of 31 1
The defendant was assessed as being at high risk of re-offending with four of the eight 2 criminogenic factors above medium levels. The Probation Officer states: - 3 4 “Mrs. Brown-Blake demonstrated significant use of neutralisation techniques, 5 including justification, minimisation, and displacement of blame. She repeatedly 6 suggested that her husband’s lack of financial support was the primary reason for 7 her actions, framing the offence as a response to her personal and family 8 circumstances rather than a deliberate choice to defraud others. 9 10 The client minimised the seriousness of the offences by emphasising that she only 11 collected deposits and did not take full rent, and further suggested that the victims 12 were still able to meet their housing obligations elsewhere. She also attempted to 13 portray her actions as an impulsive, one-time decision driven by a desire to provide 14 her children with a good Christmas, rather than acknowledging the calculated 15 nature of her behaviour (use of multiple email addresses, different SIM cards, false 16 names, and rental cars). 17 18 Mrs. Brown-Blake displayed limited victim empathy. While she stated that she and 19 her children were the true victims of her behaviour, she only later conceded that 20 the individuals she deceived “did not deserve it.”. Her responses lacked evidence 21 of genuine remorse or moral reflection, as she failed to recognise the real financial 22 loss and emotional distress experienced by her victims. 23 24 In addition, she showed defensiveness when asked about her criminal history and 25 offence details, at times suggesting that the provision of such information was 26 unhelpful to the matter. She also criticised aspects of the legal process, such as the 27 confiscation of her passport, framing this as “ridiculous” rather than 28 acknowledging it as a legitimate consequence of the offending behaviour. 29 30 While she expressed a preference for a 12-month Probation Order, this was 31 presented as a convenient sentencing outcome rather than as part of a demonstrated 32 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 17 of 31 commitment to rehabilitation. Taken together Mrs. Brown-Blake’s reliance on 1 justification, her lack of genuine victim empathy, and her failure to demonstrate 2 moral reasoning reflect the presence of a pro-criminal orientation and indicate an 3 elevated risk of continued offending without structured intervention.” 4 5 CHARACTER REFERENCES 6 7
The Court has been provided with four character references for the defendant. These have been 8 read in their entirety and are summarised herein. 9 10
Ms. Teisha Bush1 has known the defendant for over twenty-five years. Ms. Bush states that the 11 defendant has lived with integrity, compassion and quiet strength and has been deeply committed 12 to her family and community. It is also said that the defendant has endured emotional strain and 13 post traumatic stress and depression since her arrest. She is deeply remorseful for her actions and 14 the harm caused to victims. Ms. Bush believes that the defendant is beginning to show meaningful 15 signs of growth, healing and a desire to make better choices for herself and her children. 16 17
The Cayman Islands Crisis Centre 2 confirms that the defendant first visited in September 2025 18 and has been consistently engaging in support and counselling since that time. This is assisting 19 her to deal with the trauma from what is reported to be domestic abuse, post traumatic stress 20 disorder, anxiety and depression. 21 22
Osmond Lynch3 writes that he has known the defendant for over sixteen years. He describes her 23 as a devoted single mother who has shouldered the responsibility of raising her children with 24 admirable dedication. He describes her character as reflecting genuine goodness, humility and a 25 caring heart. He states that he believes that her actions were driven by financial and emotional 26 hardship, that she is deeply remorseful and has shown a sincere commitment to change and 27 growth. He also believes that with support and guidance she can be a responsible, and productive 28 member of society. 29 30 1 Letter dated 7th October 2025 2 Letter dated 4th September 2025 3 Letter dated 8th October 2025 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 18 of 31
Sashoy Duncan4 is the First Elder of a local church. Ms. Duncan writes of knowing the defendant 1 since 2010 when the defendant was a member of that Church and attended regularly until 2014. 2 Ms. Duncan states that over the years the defendant has displayed strength of character, 3 compassion and a heart that genuinely seeks to do what is right. She also states that the defendant 4 has expressed remorse following these charges and her fear of being separated from her children 5 who depend deeply on her. The defendant is said to be taking meaningful steps towards change 6 and has returned to church. 7 8 DEFENDANT’S LETTER TO THE COURT 9 10
The defendant has written a detailed letter to the Court5. She extends a sincere, heartfelt and 11 unreserved apology to those harmed by her actions. She acknowledges that her circumstances 12 however desperate do not excuse the impact of her choices. She asks the Court to understand how 13 desperation silence and pain led her to make this mistake. She describes herself as enduring a 14 marriage marked by emotional and financial abuse without spousal and child support and as 15 desperately seeking to obtain jobs. She said that she was subject to weight discrimination and 16 was broken. As Christmas approached she thought of her children going without food or gifts 17 and panicked. She states: 18 19 “What I did was wrong. I deceived others, and I carry that burden every day. But 20 I did not act out of greed – I was drowning. I was trying to survive. I had never 21 imagined myself capable of committing a crime, and I had never done anything 22 like this before. I deeply regret my actions and am sincerely sorry to those I hurt. 23 If I could undo it, I would. I have accepted responsibility from the moment of my 24 arrest and have never tried to deny it.” 25 26
She states that after her arrest in 2024 she had a major health issue. The end result is that following 27 receipt of critical hospitalised care she has a chronic condition which requires daily medication. 28 Her attempts to work thereafter were stymied by false media reports about her by a particular 29 4 Letter undated 5 letter dated 29th June 2025. 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 19 of 31 media outlet. She has begun the long process of rebuilding her life including ending what she 1 describes as a relationship which caused her to be living in a toxic and abusive environment. 2 3
She states: - 4 5 “I am not just the crime I committed. I am not just the headlines. I am a woman who was 6 silenced in her own home, judged for her appearance, rejected by her society, abandoned 7 by her spouse, debilitated by illness, and devastated by her mistakes. But I am also a 8 woman trying – every single day – to grow, to heal, and to become someone her children 9 can be proud of.” 10 11 12 THE SUBMISSIONS 13 14
The prosecution submits that under the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines for the offence, 15 this is a case of High Culpability based on the large number of victims and that the combination 16 of offences even prior to consideration of totality puts this in the High Culpability category. 17 18
The prosecution also submits that these are offences of significant planning and of a sophisticated 19 nature. In support of this reliance is placed on the fact that the defendant placed multiple adverts 20 on Ecaytrade, using multiple email addresses and multiple cell numbers (including disposing of 21 them tactically when required) and used a series of names, all aimed at avoiding detection. 22 Counsel says that while certain elements could be seen as careless, there was a significant degree 23 of careful planning that went into her offending. 24 25
Reference is also made to the length of time over which the fraudulent activity took place being 26 between December 2023 and January 2024. Counsel submits that this is not a one-off offence 27 and that the inference is that the offending would have continued had it not been for the creation 28 of the meeting that led to her arrest. 29 30
It is also submitted that whilst the prosecution does not say that the victims were particularly 31 targeted based on their vulnerability, it must be borne in mind that the lack of affordable rental 32 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 20 of 31 accommodation in the Cayman Islands created the opportunity which was exploited by this 1 defendant. In this way it may be said that she exploited a potentially vulnerable corner of the 2 labour market. 3 4
As to the level of harm, the prosecution submits that each offence considered separately is in 5 Category 3 but that the harm based on cumulative value is Category 2 Harm. 6 7
A Category 2A case has a starting point of 4 years' custody with a range of sentence of 2 years to 8 6 years' custody. 9 10 SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEFENCE 11 12
Defence Counsel submits that while it is accepted that there was a degree of planning involved, 13 this was not a sophisticated offence. Counsel says that this is perhaps best evidenced by the 14 relatively straightforward detection of the defendant by law enforcement. 15 16
Counsel argues that although significant planning is one feature which is capable of supporting a 17 higher culpability categorisation, when one looks at the overall impression given by the high and 18 lower culpability features, this case does not fit neatly into either category and is best suited to a 19 medium culpability categorisation. 20 21
The submission as to harm, is that this is a low-end Category 2 harm case. Counsel submits that 22 significant and additional to the harm inherent in a Category 2 obtaining property by deception 23 case i.e., the harm one would expect in a case in which an individual is conned out of up to 24 $50,000 would need to be present before an uplift in the categorisation would be appropriate. 25 26
A category 2B case has a starting point of 2 years and a range of sentence of 1 to 4 years’ custody. 27 28
Defence Counsel submits that the VIRs do not disclose significant additional harm to an extent 29 which would serve to raise the categorisation. Counsel said that Mr. Goes is the only one who 30 discloses some additional harm above that which is financial, but that this is not significant. 31 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 21 of 31 Counsel said that there is nothing special about this case. The victims have suffered to the extent 1 that one would expect, and the offending remains a low-level Category 2. 2 3
Counsel submitted that the offending is not charged as a rolled up count. There are separate 4 counts, but it is accepted that at the end, the sentence must reflect the overall criminality. 5 6
Counsel said that it is conceded that there was significant planning by virtue of the steps taken to 7 provide names and advertisements. However, it is a matter of dispute whether this was 8 sophisticated or not. The submission is that it is not. Counsel said that there is thus only one 9 feature suggesting higher culpability. This is more accurately described as a medium culpability 10 case that falls between the two levels. 11 12
Counsel submitted that there were external pressures which contributed to this offending. There 13 was financial abuse or negligence on the part of her spouse, which has affected her culpability in 14 a downward sense. 15 16
Counsel said that this is a Category 2 Harm case and depending on culpability the starting point 17 is either 4 years or 2 years because it is at the lower end of the range of harm. 18 19 SUBMISSIONS IN MITIGATION 20 21
In mitigation, defence Counsel submitted that $1425 was returned to the last victim. Counsel said 22 that the defendant is a forty three year old Caymanian who has been separated for some time 23 from her husband. The relationship is not a positive one. 24 25
The older children are successful individuals. The younger children remain in her care. Counsel 26 submitted that the defendant had a particularly difficult upbringing. There was neglect and abuse 27 in the home such that she had to be placed under the care of the State. In adulthood she had her 28 older children at a relatively young age. She was left to care for her younger children who are of 29 the marriage on her own and had to seek an order for financial provision. She was in a financially 30 vulnerable position leading to the commission of the offences. She has tried to be employed and 31 has undertaken a number of courses. 32 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 22 of 31 1
She has had health challenges which have impacted her health and employment. She is currently 2 still suffering from employment challenges given the publicity surrounding her behaviour but is 3 still very desirous of getting into employment. Counsel said that the references from her children 4 as recorded in the SIR endorse the fact that she remains a caregiver and a loving mother to her 5 children. The lack of support from her husband impacted her. 6 7
Counsel submitted that there are aspects of the SIR which are of concern, where it is stated that 8 the defendant did not demonstrate a degree of understanding. The defendant does not agree with 9 this and invites the Court to look at her own letter which she prepared. This shows a significant 10 degree of understanding and remorse. Counsel said that the defendant has always accepted her 11 guilt throughout her arrest and arraignment. Counsel said that when the SIR was being prepared 12 this was a challenging time for the defendant who had been struggling with the consequences of 13 what she had done. 14 15
Counsel said that the references provided speak to her genuine remorse and the fact that she is 16 working to address her underlying issues and to make herself a better person. Counsel said that 17 that it is commendable that she has made known to people what she had done. 18 19
Counsel submitted that this is not a traditional breach of trust case and it is possible for there to 20 be a non-custodial sentence. Counsel asked the Court in the exercise of its discretion to consider 21 the following: - 22 23 i) The length of time that the defendant has been crime free, that she is in effect of good 24 character. 25 ii) Her caregiving responsibilities in particular for her six-year-old child. 26 iii) Her efforts at addressing rehabilitation in the community. 27 iv) Her sentence can have an element of supervision. 28 29 30
Counsel said that the sentence should be immediate only if the Court is satisfied that another 31 sentence does not meet the gravity of the offence. Counsel said that the defendant has learnt her 32 lesson and a suspended sentence would give her the opportunity to prove this. 33 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 23 of 31 1 THE SENTENCE 2 3
In the Court’s view the offending is serious for several reasons. This was sustained and repeated 4 offending over a period of weeks. This was not a one-off offence. 5 6
It is difficult to agree with defence Counsel that there is nothing special or different about this 7 case. 8 9
This is not a case where all that was lost was the money stolen. This was more than money. In 10 each case the victims were seeking homes. They were given move in dates which turned out to 11 be false. It is evident from the level of deposits requested and from the VIRs that the targets were 12 lower income earners. Not only were these persons who could ill afford to lose what to them were 13 substantial savings, but their living arrangements were put at risk. Two of the victims say that 14 they had to resort to the kindness of family and friends in order as one put it “not to be homeless”. 15 16
In the Court’s view the nature of the fraud affecting as it did peoples’ living arrangements must 17 inevitably bring with it a high level of inconvenience. The summary of facts highlights the 18 circumstances of victims driving from one place to the other to try to find an apartment that did 19 not exist and making multiple arrangements to collect keys which were never forthcoming. 20 21
In the Court’ s view the custody threshold is firmly passed. 22 23
In this case the Court is faced with a balancing exercise among a number of competing interests 24 and objectives. The sentence must take account of the gravity and seriousness of the offence but 25 must also be tailored to the individual circumstances of the defendant which include her evident 26 remorse and difficult personal circumstances. 27 28
In the Court’s view the culpability in this case is high due to the significant planning which was 29 undertaken as is evident from the circumstances outlined above. The defendant used a website, 30 different phone numbers, locations, names and excuses as to the reasons that the properties could 31 not be viewed. She sent pictures of those properties. 32 33 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 24 of 31
As to the level of harm as there are not VIRs from all victims, the harm is set as Category 3 1 medium level for each individual offence. An offence of High Culpability and Medium Harm has 2 a starting point of 15 months imprisonment. 3 4
In mitigation account is taken of all the circumstances urged by her Counsel, by the SIR and by 5 her character witnesses. She is remorseful, of good character, the primary caregiver and a caring 6 mother of two young children, one of whom requires special care. She had a difficult childhood 7 and as an adult a difficult marriage where she was subjected to circumstances which are said to 8 have led to this offending. She has made genuine efforts towards rehabilitation. She has health 9 issues. A portion of the overall amount taken has been repaid. These circumstances serve to 10 reduce the sentence by 6 months to one of 9 months imprisonment. 11 12
The defendant is given the full one third credit for her guilty plea, which came at the first 13 reasonable opportunity, of 3 months, for a final sentence of 6 months on each Count. 14 15
The Court considers the principle of totality, this being a case of multiple victims, and considers 16 whether the sentences should be concurrent or consecutive. The Court is mindful of the principles 17 set out in paragraph 6 of the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines with respect to concurrent 18 and consecutive sentences as follows: 19 20 “6.1 Concurrent Sentences 21 It is wrong in principle to impose sentences to run consecutively where those 22 offences, though distinct in law, arose out of a single act so that the overall 23 criminality for the offender can be represented by concurrent sentences. 24 Concurrent sentences will ordinarily be appropriate where: 25 (a) Offences arise out of a related incident or facts. 26 (b)There is a series of offences of the same or similar kind especially when 27 committed against the same victim. 28 29 Where concurrent sentence are passed, the sentence should reflect the overall 30 criminality involved. The sentence should be appropriately aggravated by the 31 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 25 of 31 presence of the associated offences and thus the court may increase sentence for 1 the principal offence to reflect the gravity of conduct: 2 3 6.2 Consecutive Sentences 4 Consecutive sentences will ordinarily be appropriate where: 5 a) Offences arise out of unrelated facts or incidents. 6 b) Offences are of the same or similar kind but where the overall 7 criminality will not sufficiently be reflected by concurrent sentences 8 for example: 9 i. Where offences are committed against different victims. 10 ii. Where sexual offences or domestic violence are 11 committed against the same individual. 12 iii. Where the offender commits the same or similar offence 13 after being arrested for the original offence. 14 iv. Where the maximum penalty available for the most 15 serious offence is too low to enable the court to reflect the 16 overall seriousness of the offences taken as a whole. 17 …” 18 19
In the instant case there are multiple victims with the offending committed over multiple days. 20 The gravity of the offending must be reflected in the overall sentence. It is thus appropriate that 21 the sentences or some aspect of them run consecutively. To this end the sentence on Count 6, 3rd 22 January 2024 is to run consecutively to the sentence on Count 1, (22nd December 2023) and the 23 sentence on Count 10, 11th January 2024 is to run consecutively to the sentence on Count 6 for a 24 total sentence of 18 months imprisonment. 25 26
The Court has given consideration to whether this sentence should be served immediately or any 27 part of it may properly be suspended. The Court is mindful of the principles set out in the 28 Alternative Sentencing Act. Custody should be reserved for the most serious offences and that a 29 convicted person should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate. 30 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 26 of 31
The Guidelines provide that passing the custody threshold does not mean that a custodial 1 sentence is deemed unavoidable, custody can still be avoided in the light of personal mitigation 2 or where is suitable intervention in the community. 3 4
This Court does not consider that the personal circumstances of the defendant balanced against 5 the gravity of the offending are such as to make a sentence of immediate custody avoidable in 6 this case. The defendant raises lack of financial support and abuse in her marriage which led her 7 to commit the crimes but surely there must have been other options. These are the very options 8 that the defendant is pursuing now, government assistance and child support. From her letter and 9 presentation to the Court, the defendant is clearly an intelligent individual. It is hard to accept 10 that she contemplated that her only option was to steal. It is also difficult to reconcile the claim 11 of desperation for her children to be provided for over Christmas, when the activity continued 12 through to the 11th January. 13 14
The aims of sentencing in this case, given the levels of victims affected, must include punishment 15 and deterrence. It cannot only be focused on rehabilitation. The nature of the offending which 16 strikes at the heart of one of the most basic needs of society for shelter requires that there must 17 be deterrence not only of the defendant but of like minded persons in the wider community. 18 19
The defendant is at high risk of re-offending. This is a concern. The Court must consider the 20 protection of the public. Even if rehabilitation in the community were to be given pre-eminence 21 over punishment, the Probation Officer’s assessment casts doubt on the defendant’s level of 22 motivation. The Officer stated: - 23 24 “Mrs. Brown-Blake has been assessed as presenting a high risk of reoffending 25 according to the LS/CMI assessment. She has not demonstrated full 26 acknowledgement of the seriousness of her actions and continues to minimise her 27 level of responsibility, often attributing her behaviour to external factors such as 28 her marital difficulties and financial strain. While she has maintained compliance 29 with legal proceedings to date, her conduct reflected defensiveness, resistance, and 30 a limited capacity to appreciate the impact of her actions on others.” 31 32 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 27 of 31
Counsel has suggested that this was due to the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the 1 preparation of the report. 2 3
At the end of the last hearing the Court sought the further assistance of the Officer in relation to 4 the care of the younger children should a sentence of immediate custody be imposed or 5 alternatively the options for rehabilitation in the community. 6 7
The Officer has provided an addendum report dated 24th October 2025. This states in part the 8 following: - 9 10 “Mrs. Olisiea Patricia Brown-Blake was assessed as presenting a high risk of 11 reoffending, with several specific risk/need factors identified. These include 12 deficits in problem-solving and self-management, moral reasoning, consequential 13 thinking, and affective empathy. 14 15 Additionally, the client’s motivation to change is assessed to be at the pre- 16 contemplation stage. While she has reported engagement with HSA Behavioural 17 Health, has recently resumed church attendance, and has signed up for counselling 18 at The Counselling Centre, the timeframe and level of engagement are not 19 sufficient at this stage to indicate that the client is genuinely contemplating 20 meaningful behavioural change.” 21 22 23
The defendant has provided a detailed response in which she seeks to provide clarification and 24 context. 25 26
In summary she states that although the report lists her as “high risk” and in the “pre- 27 contemplation stage,” she has shown consistent commitment to change since her arrest in January 28
She says that she entered an early guilty plea, followed all bail and Court conditions, 29 remained crime free and attended therapy for anxiety, trauma, and depression. She has also re- 30 engaged with her church community. 31 32 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 28 of 31
She asks that any social media restriction on her be limited as she earns income lawfully through 1 digital marketing and has plans for a separate career in a field which will require use of digital 2 media. 3 4
She maintains her position that she was in a long term abusive relationship where there was a 5 pattern of intimidation and control. 6 7
She says that her youngest child who has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder depends 8 heavily on routine and her daily care. She says that her older son struggles with depression and 9 fears being separated from her, that both children are emotionally close and should remain 10 together under her care. 11 12
She states that her older son resides with her, is temporarily unemployed because of the slow 13 tourist season and if she were imprisoned, he would lose his home because it is rented in her 14 name through Government assistance. 15 16
She re-iterates her commitment to finding employment, to living responsibly in the community 17 and asks that her children not be punished for her actions. She apologises again for her actions. 18 19
Both Counsel have today been afforded the opportunity to make further submissions. Defence 20 Counsel drew the Court’s attention to paragraph 5A-82 of Archbold 2024 and the reference 21 therein to the case of R v Petherick6. Counsel said that there are special features to this case. The 22 youngest child, while at a high functioning level is in need of special care. Counsel said that the 23 children have been witness to domestic violence in the marital home. There is a question whether 24 the youngest child would be properly cared for in the father’s home. Counsel said that in the 25 circumstances of this case all the factors taken together tip the balance in favour of a community- 26 based sentence. Such a sentence could be made stringent and meet the Courts’ objective when it 27 comes to punishment. Counsel said that in the delicate balancing exercise required in this case, a 28 sentence of immediate custody would amount to a disproportionate interference with family life. 29 30
The Court is mindful of the defendant’s family circumstances and that any sentence of custody 31 will affect her dependents and has given anxious consideration to this. The judgment of the 32 6 [2012] EWCA Crim 2214 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 29 of 31 English Court of Appeal in the case of R v Petherick provides guidance as to the approach which 1 a court should take when seeking to balance what may be an interference with family life with 2 the pursuit of a legitimate aim in sentencing. The Court identified a number of relevant principles 3 to be taken into account some of which are set out below. 4 5
The Court stated: - 6 7 “17. We do think however that we ought to say these brief things by way of general 8 observation. First, the sentencing of a defendant inevitably engages not only her 9 own article 8 family life but also that of her family and that includes (but is not 10 limited to) any dependent child or children. The same will apply in some cases to 11 an adult for whom a male or female defendant is a carer and whether there is a marital 12 or parental link or not. Almost by definition, imprisonment interferes with, and often 13 severely, the family life not only of the defendant but of those with whom the 14 defendant normally lives and often with others as well. Even without the potentially 15 heart-rending effects on children or other dependents, a family is likely to be 16 deprived of its breadwinner, the family home not infrequently has to go, schools may 17 have to be changed. Lives may be turned upside down by crime. 18 19
Second, the right approach in all article 8 cases is to ask these questions: A. Is there 20 an interference with family life? B. Is it in accordance with law and in pursuit of a 21 legitimate aim within article 8.2? C. Is the interference proportionate given the 22 balance between the various factors? That is carefully set out by Lady Hale in her 23 speech in HH. Although she was in the minority as to the outcome in relation to one 24 of the persons sought for extradition, she gave at paragraph [30] this analysis with 25 which there was general agreement. That approach is as true of sentencing as of any 26 other kind of case in which family life is in question. Of course in sentencing, the 27 first two questions will usually be straightforward. There will almost always be some 28 interference with family life and it will be in accordance with law and due to 29 legitimate aims. It is the third question which may call for careful judgment.” 30 31 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 30 of 31
The balancing of aims include the recognition of society’s need to punish serious crime, the 1 interest of victims and the need for there to be appropriate deterrence. The Court stated: 2 3 “Fifth, in a criminal sentencing exercise the legitimate aims of sentencing which 4 have to be balanced against the effect of a sentence often inevitably has on the 5 family life of others, include the need of society to punish serious crime, the 6 interest of victims that punishment should constitute just desserts, the needs of 7 society for appropriate deterrence (see section 142 Criminal Justice Act 2003) and 8 the requirement that there ought not to be unjustified disparity between different 9 defendants convicted of similar crimes. Moreover, as Sachs J pointed out in the 10 South African Constitutional Court in N v The State [2007] ZACC 18, in a case in 11 which there was under consideration a specific provision in the Constitution which 12 required the interests of an affected child to be "the paramount consideration", not 13 only society but also children have a direct interest in society's climate being one 14 of moral accountability for wrongdoing.” 15 16
It was stated that where custody cannot proportionately be avoided, the effect on children may 17 afford grounds for mitigating the length of the sentence: - 18 19 “24. Eighth, in a case where custody cannot proportionately be avoided, the 20 effect on children or other family members might (our emphasis) afford grounds 21 for mitigating the length of sentence, but it may not do so. If it does, it is quite 22 clear that there can be no standard or normative adjustment or conventional 23 reduction by way of percentage or otherwise.” 24 25
This Court is firmly of the view that a custodial sentence is proportionate to the offending in the 26 instant case and that this is not a case on the cusp between immediate custody and not. The Courts 27 is also of the view given the gravity of the offending and balancing all factors that but for the 28 children of the defendant and their particular needs, the appropriate sentence is one of 18 months 29 imprisonment. 30 31 251029 - R v Olisiea Patricia Blake: Ind. 78 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 31 of 31
The Probation Officer has at the Court’s request provided care options for the children should the 1 defendant be incarcerated. The youngest child would be cared for by his grandmother and the 2 older child by the State since his older sister who had initially offered to care for him has now 3 resiled from that position. As the case of Petehrick notes, children themselves must understand 4 that there are consequences for actions and must learn moral responsibility. The Probation Officer 5 states that these arrangements would provide for the immediate safety, supervision and stability 6 of both children during any custodial period. This Court is confident that the State which is 7 presently providing rental accommodation for the defendant and her family will continue to 8 provide for her children and ensure their care and protection. 9 10
However, the Court does treat the effect on the children as a further mitigating factor and reduces 11 the sentence as a result of this from 18 months to one of 12 months imprisonment. 12 13
In conclusion, having considered all the circumstances with care, the sentence imposed is one of 14 immediate imprisonment of 12 months. 15 16
The Probation Officer, who is in Court, is asked now to put in place the identified arrangements 17 for the children. 18 19
A compensation order is made in the sum of $1,425. This is to be satisfied from the funds held 20 by the Police. 21 22 Dated this the 29th day of October 2025 23 24 25 The Hon. Justice Cheryll Richards KC 26 Judge of the Grand Court 27