R v Amari Lequan Grant - Sentence Judgment

¶ 250926 R v Amari Lequan Grant: Ind. 39 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 1 of 10 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 1 CRIMINAL SIDE 2 3 Neutral Citation Number: [2025] CIGC (Crim) 48 4 INDICTMENT NO: 39 of 2025 5 6 7 R 8 9 V. 10 11 12 AMARI LEQUAN GRANT 13 14 Appearances: Mr. Kenneth Ferguson, Crown Counsel, Office of the Director of 15 Public Prosecutions for the Prosecution 16 17 Mr. Dennis Brady of Brady Law for the Defence 18 19 Before: Justice Cheryll Richards KC 20 Submissions Heard: 26th September 2025 21 Sentence Judgment: 26th September 2025 22 23 24 Criminal Law - Sentencing for Aggravated Burglary, contrary to Section 244 (1) of the Penal Code (2024 25 Revision), Making a Threat to Kill, contrary to section 88C of the Penal Code (2024 Revision), Common 26 Assault, contrary to section 215 of the Penal Code (2024 Revision). Principles on Sentencing, 27 Exceptional Circumstances. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 250926 R v Amari Lequan Grant: Ind. 39 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 2 of 10 SENTENCE JUDGMENT 1 2

¶ [1] The defendant is before the Court for sentencing following his guilty pleas to four Counts of 3 the Indictment as follows. 4 5

¶ [2] Count 1 charges him with the offence of Aggravated Burglary, contrary to Section 244 (1) of 6 the Penal Code (2024 Revision). The particulars are that he on the 8th day of April 2025, entered 7 a building, namely … Montrose Way, Bodden Town, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, as a 8 trespasser with intent to assault Dejanae Selena Taylor and at the same time was armed with an 9 offensive weapon namely a machete. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment. 10 11

¶ [3] Count 2 charges him with the offence of Making a Threat to Kill, contrary to section 88C of 12 the Penal Code (2024 Revision). The particulars are that he on the 8th day of April 2025, in the 13 jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands, without lawful excuse, made towards Dejanae Selena 14 Taylor a threat to kill her, intending that Dejanae Selena Taylor would fear that the threat would 15 be carried out. The maximum sentence is 10 years' imprisonment. 16 17

¶ [4] Count 3 charges him with the offence of Common Assault, contrary to section 215 of the Penal 18 Code (2024 Revision). The particulars are that he on the 8th day of April 2025, at … Montrose 19 Way, Bodden Town, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, unlawfully assaulted Dejanae Selena 20 Taylor by throwing rocks at her. The maximum sentence is 1 year imprisonment. 21 22

¶ [5] Count 4 charges him with a second offence of Common Assault. The particulars are that he on 23 the 8th day of April 2025, at … Montrose Way, Bodden Town, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, 24 unlawfully assaulted Dejanae Selena Taylor by chopping at her with a machete. 25 26

¶ [6] The defendant first appeared in the Grand Court on the 17th April 2025. Following the defence 27 request for time, he was arraigned on his second appearance on the 2nd May 2025 and entered 28 the pleas as aforementioned. 29 30 31 250926 R v Amari Lequan Grant: Ind. 39 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 3 of 10

¶ [7] It is accepted that the pleas were entered at the first reasonable opportunity and that the 1 defendant is entitled to full credit. 2 3 THE FACTS 4 5

¶ [8] The prosecution has provided a summary of the facts which is not disputed by the defence. It 6 is set out below. The Court considers that the facts of the case are unusual, and this has led to 7 the type of sentence which is imposed herein. 8 9

¶ [9] On Tuesday, the 8th of April 2025, sometime during the early afternoon, the victim was at her 10 home in Bodden Town and was engaged in a FaceTime (video) chat with her girlfriend and the 11 defendant who is the partner of her girlfriend. They were at another house in Northside. They 12 all were discussing various topics and joking around. 13 14

¶ [10] At some stage during this video chat, the victim asked the defendant why it is that people called 15 him “RT”. This is an alias by which the victim knew the defendant. The defendant replied that 16 “RT” meant “retarded”. They all laughed and asked him who gave him that alias. The victim 17 found the conversation funny and did not think that it would become an issue with the defendant 18 as it was common for them to tease each other and engage in friendly conversations from which 19 they would eventually move on without any hard feelings. However, she realised that the 20 defendant had become upset as he became silent before walking out of the room and slamming 21 the door. A few minutes later, he returned to the video chat and started to curse the victim 22 calling her a “bitch” and “a whore” and told her to “go suck your mother”. The victim says that 23 she continued laughing, as at that stage, she thought the defendant was joking but he began to 24 make the threats to her, telling her “shut the f… up, I am going to kill you”, “I am going to 25 come to your house and chop you up and kill you”. He then left the room again but returned a 26 few minutes later and during the video chat, he and his friend got into his vehicle as he was 27 taking his friend to work. During this time, he continued to curse and make threats towards the 28 victim on the video chat. 29 30

¶ [11] He drove to the victim’s house where he shouted for her to open her door. The victim said that 31 she opened her front door and saw him armed with a machete in his right hand. He began to 32 shout at her that he was going to kill her. He then grabbed some rocks from the ground and 33 250926 R v Amari Lequan Grant: Ind. 39 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 4 of 10 threw them at her but none of them caught her. She then tried to close the door, but he forced 1 it open and waved the machete at her trying to cause harm with it and kept shouting “you 2 mocking me?”, “you f… mocking me?”. The victim managed to run away and to lock herself 3 in her bedroom from where she heard plates being thrown on the floor. She subsequently 4 discovered that one of these plates broke. She telephoned for help but by the time others arrived 5 at the house the defendant had left the premises. 6 7

¶ [12] On the 9th April 2025 the police contacted the defendant by telephone and invited him to the 8 George Town CID office. He later attended and was arrested. 9 10

¶ [13] The defendant was interviewed under caution by the police in the presence of Duty Counsel on 11 10th April 2025. During this interview, he accepted the account of the victim and that he did 12 say to her “Shut the f… up, I am coming to your house to chop you and kill you”. He stated 13 that he said those words to her in order to instil fear into her and to get her to stop making fun 14 of him. He went on to say that after the initial interaction, he spent a few hours trying to calm 15 down before he decided to get into his vehicle and drive to the victim’s house, but he 16 subsequently turned his vehicle around at the top of his street and returned home. 17 18

¶ [14] He said that sometime after 2:00pm that day, he armed himself with a machete and was in the 19 course of a journey when he contacted the victim by video chat. He continued the argument 20 with her and became angry. He drove to her house on Montrose Street, armed with the machete. 21 His explanation for arming himself with the machete at that time is that he believed that the 22 victim’s boyfriend might be at her house and he was concerned that the boyfriend might have 23 been armed with a firearm. He said that when he arrived at the victim’s house, she appeared at 24 her front door armed with a machete and therefore he picked up some rocks and threw them at 25 her - twice. He chopped at her twice in an attempt to strike her hand with the machete, but he 26 missed on both occasions. He said that he then forced himself into her house armed with the 27 machete where he broke some dishes in the dishwasher, as the victim hid herself in her 28 bedroom. He then left the premises. He later left the machete in the backyard of his house. 29 30 31 32 33 250926 R v Amari Lequan Grant: Ind. 39 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 5 of 10

¶ [15] The machete was not recovered by the police. 1 2 VICTIM IMPACT REPORT 3 4

¶ [16] The Department of Community Rehabilitation (“DCR”) has provided a Victim Impact Report 5 dated 26th June 2025 (“VIR”). 6 7

¶ [17] The victim reports feeling shocked and scared by the defendant’s actions when he came to her 8 door with a machete. She said that he was making big, wide swings with the machete and she 9 was afraid that it would catch her. Some of the stones which he threw caught her in the face 10 causing bruises. These have since healed. She experienced anxiety in the immediate period 11 after the incident. 12 13

¶ [18] The victim stated also that her boyfriend was threatened. She was unable to sleep at nights, and 14 is still on alert. She said that there was no previous conflict or hostility between the defendant 15 and herself. She is still surprised and confused about the incident as she was not the one who 16 brought up the topic, so she is unsure of the reason that the defendant directed his anger at her. 17 18

¶ [19] She said also that there has been no further incident since then but asks for justice and protective 19 measures. 20 21

¶ [20] The Probation Officer’s assessment is that the victim was more significantly impacted at the 22 emotional level. 23 24 ANTECEDENT HISTORY 25 26

¶ [21] The defendant has no previous convictions recorded against him. 27 28 SOCIAL INQUIRY REPORT 29 30

¶ [22] The DCR has provided a Social Inquiry Report dated the 21st August 2025, (“SIR”). The Court 31 has read this report in its entirety and takes into account everything said therein in favour of 32 the defendant. 33 250926 R v Amari Lequan Grant: Ind. 39 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 6 of 10 1

¶ [23] The defendant is twenty-three years old. He had a challenging childhood with periods of 2 homelessness beginning from a very early age. His home environment was sometimes abusive 3 and without the care of either parent. In school he was the victim of bullying which led to fights 4 and altercations. 5 6

¶ [24] Following high school, he endeavoured to be employed at various jobs and reportedly has no 7 history of disciplinary action or performance related issues. 8 9

¶ [25] The Probation Officer records the following: - 10 11 “Mr. Grant acknowledged that the incident was, in his own words, “highly dumb”, 12 and accepted full responsibility for his actions. He recognised that his behaviour 13 could have had a serious and painful impact on the victim, stating, “I take full 14 responsibility for my behaviour and its consequences.” He expressed immediate 15 regret, noting that he should have removed himself from the situation. The 16 defendant conveyed genuine remorse and acknowledged that his actions were both 17 inappropriate and avoidable. He also confirmed that he has had no contact or 18 communication with the victim since the incident. 19 20 It is assessed that the defendant would benefit from participating in an intervention 21 focused on addressing his attitude and behaviour within relationships. Such 22 support may contribute to strengthening these relationships and, in turn, reduce his 23 risk of reoffending.” 24 25

¶ [26] The defendant was assessed by the Probation Officer as being at low risk of reoffending with 26 no criminogenic factors above the medium level. 27 28

¶ [27] Under the heading Sentencing Options, the Officer states: - 29 30 “Mr. Grant is a twenty-three year old, Caymanian male appearing before the … 31 Court for the first time. He has been assessed as posing a low risk of further 32 250926 R v Amari Lequan Grant: Ind. 39 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 7 of 10 reoffending. Despite the risk level identified above, it is assessed that Mr. Grant 1 could benefit from therapeutic intervention. 2 3 The current offence is aggravated by Mr. Grant’s mutual friendship with the victim, 4 as well as the use of a weapon, namely a machete, to cause fear. However, there 5 is no evidence to suggest any significant premeditation, although he did 6 acknowledge having contemplated attending the victim’s residence. It is also 7 relevant to note that Mr. Grant did not engage in any direct physical assault with 8 the machete, but he did acknowledge striking the victim with rocks.” 9 10

¶ [28] The Officer recommends several community sentence options. 11 12 THE SUBMISSIONS 13 14

¶ [29] Counsel for the prosecution referenced the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines in respect 15 of each offence. On the offence of Aggravated Burglary, Counsel referred to the harm and 16 culpability factors which would give rise to a custodial sentence and stated that: 17 18 “In stating this however the prosecution is mindful of the circumstances of the 19 offending and invites the Court to consider this aspect when determining the 20 offence category and level of harm accordingly.” 21 22

¶ [30] Counsel stated at paragraph 25 of his written submissions: - 23 24 “Finally, in light of the circumstances of the offending, the age of the offender, the 25 fact that this is his first encounter with the courts – an isolated incident, the fact 26 that he entered guilty pleas to the indictment at the earliest reasonable time 27 available to him and his remorse as expressed in his Social Inquiry Report, the 28 Court will no doubt take account of the recommendations of the respective 29 Probation Officers contained in the final paragraph of the Victim Impact Report 30 and the Social Inquiry Report to do justice to both complainant and offender.” 31 32 33 250926 R v Amari Lequan Grant: Ind. 39 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 8 of 10

¶ [31] Defence Counsel submitted: - 1 2 “Your Ladyship has heard how the simple taunting of this young man of otherwise 3 unblemished character, led him into succumbing to an act that [can] only be 4 described as an “inexplicable gross indiscretion”, which rapidly spiraled out of 5 control, and without warning denigrated into, what for all intents and purposes, 6 must be considered as, a truly unfortunate domino effect of events, ...” 7 8

¶ [32] Counsel said that there can be no other explanation for what occurred because the defendant’s 9 response was clearly disproportionate to what was a simple matter of playful fun. 10 11

¶ [33] Counsel said the parties were friends and accustomed to frequently hanging out together. It 12 arose from a simple taunt, a joke which has led to the defendant being before the Court. It 13 triggered memories which were traumatic for the defendant. His reaction to it was “over the 14 top”. It is inexplicable how rapidly it spun out of control. Counsel said that it is truly an 15 unfortunate sequence of events. It shows an extreme demonstration of a disproportionate 16 response marked by an incapacity to control feelings of incapacity, misplaced pride and ill 17 feeling. Counsel said that cooler heads and more maturity would most likely have avoided the 18 events which followed. 19 20

¶ [34] Counsel said that the defendant is otherwise of an unblemished character. He has accepted full 21 responsibility for his actions and is a proper candidate for professional help in the area of anger 22 management. 23 24

¶ [35] Counsel said that the defendant is not beyond the scope of help and rehabilitation. He seeks to 25 be a productive and engaged member of the community. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 250926 R v Amari Lequan Grant: Ind. 39 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 9 of 10 THE SENTENCE 1 2

¶ [36] The Court gives consideration to the circumstances of the offence which include that the 3 defendant and the victim were friends. The victim began teasing the defendant over a video 4 call, calling him a “RT” or retard and would not stop despite repeated requests from the 5 defendant. The defendant became angry and went to the victim’s home with a machete. He 6 threw rocks at her and made threats. The defendant did not use the machete to cause any injury. 7 8

¶ [37] Defence Counsel described what occurred as a simple taunt between friends which spun out of 9 control, it triggered memories for the defendant and he lost control of himself. 10 11

¶ [38] The Court also considers the personal circumstances of the defendant as outlined by his 12 Counsel and in detail in the SIR and notes that the defendant is relatively young at twenty-three 13 years old. He has no previous convictions, is of good character, is assessed as being at low risk 14 of re-offending and is identified by the Probation Officer as a suitable candidate for therapeutic 15 intervention. At an early stage the defendant took full responsibility for his actions. He is 16 genuinely remorseful and recognises that he needs help to control his emotions. The 17 defendants’ history of being bullied at a young age is also an important factor. 18 19

¶ [39] The conclusion is that this is an exceptional case in which the primary aim of sentencing should 20 be rehabilitation and that it is appropriate in all the circumstances that the recommendations of 21 the Probation Officer be accepted. 22 23

¶ [40] The defendant is therefore sentenced on all counts as follows: 24 i) Pursuant to section 35 of the Alternative Sentencing Act 2008, Probation 25 Order for 12 months with the following conditions: 26 27 a. To attend and complete anger management programme through the 28 DCR. 29 b. Attend any counselling recommended by the DCR. 30 c. Not to have any direct or indirect contact with the victim, Dejanae 31 Taylor. 32 33 250926 R v Amari Lequan Grant: Ind. 39 of 2025. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 10 of 10 d. Not to come within 100 feet of the victim, Dejanae Taylor. 1 2 ii) Pursuant to section 42 of the Penal Code a Community Service Order is made 3 by which the defendant is to complete 240 hours of community service in 12 4 months. 5 6 Dated this the 26th day of September 2025 7 8 The Hon. Justice Cheryll Richards KC 9 Judge of the Grand Court 10