R v Samir Jaffer Bandal - Sentence Judgment

¶ 250702 - R v Samir Jaffer Bandali: Ind. 50 of 2024. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 1 of 14 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 1 CRIMINAL DIVISION 2 Neutral Citation Number: [2025] CIGC (Crim) 68 3 INDICTMENT NO: 50 of 2024 4 5 6 R 7 8 V. 9 10 SAMIR JAFFER BANDALI 11 12 13 14 Appearances: Mr. Kenneth Ferguson, Crown Counsel, Office of the Director of Public 15 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: 30th May 2025 and 2nd July 2025 23 24 Sentence Judgment: 2nd July 2025 25 26 27 28 Criminal Law – Sentencing, Causing Death by Careless Driving contrary to section 75 (1) of the Traffic 29 Act (2023 Revision). 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 250702 - R v Samir Jaffer Bandali: Ind. 50 of 2024. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 2 of 14 1 SENTENCE JUDGMENT 2 3

¶ [1] The defendant is before the Court for sentencing following his guilty plea to the lesser offence 4 of Causing Death by Careless Driving contrary to section 79 (1) of the Traffic Act (2023 5 Revision). 6 7

¶ [2] The particulars are that he on the 8th day of March 2023 drove a Jeep Cherokee motor vehicle 8 registration number 190 348 on West Bay Road, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands without due 9 care and attention and thereby caused the death of Abele Hiwet. 10 11

¶ [3] The maximum sentence is a fine of ten thousand dollars or 7 years imprisonment or both. In 12 addition, there is a mandatory period of disqualification for a minimum period of three years. 13 By section 22 (5) of the Penal Code (2024 Revision) a sentence of imprisonment imposed for 14 such offence may not be suspended. 15 16

¶ [4] The defendant was initially charged with the offences of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving 17 contrary to section 75 (1) of the Traffic Act (2023 Revision), (Count 1 of the Indictment) and 18 Driving a Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Causing Death contrary to section 19 83 (1) (a) of the said Act, (Count 2 of the Indictment). 20 21

¶ [5] The defendant first appeared in the Grand Court on the 7th June 2024 when a dismissal 22 application was foreshadowed. By amendment to the Indictment a third count of Causing 23 Death by Careless Driving was added on the 8th August 2024. On the 18th August 2024 an 24 application was made for the dismissal of the offences as first charged on the Indictment. This 25 application was refused. Shortly after the ruling on the dismissal application was given, the 26 defendant applied for a Goodyear indication. This indication was given of a maximum sentence 27 of 18 months imprisonment without taking into account mitigating factors. 28 29

¶ [6] The defendant entered the guilty plea on the 13th November 2024. The prosecution indicated 30 that it will not proceed on the other two offences outlined above. It is accepted by the 31 prosecution that this plea was offered at the first reasonable opportunity, and the defendant is 32 entitled to full credit. 33 250702 - R v Samir Jaffer Bandali: Ind. 50 of 2024. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 3 of 14 1 THE BASIS OF PLEA 2 3

¶ [7] The agreed basis of plea is as follows: 4 5 “I Samir Jaffer Bandali, plead guilty to Count 3 (Causing death by careless or inconsiderate 6 driving) on the following basis: 7 8 On the night in question, I consumed several draft beers, and I accept that this impacted on 9 my ability to drive safely. 10 I accept driving at 47 miles per hour at the time of the collision. 11 I accept that my momentary inattention in allowing my vehicle to breach the cycle lane 12 amounted to a failure to pay proper regard to vulnerable road users, and specifically 13 cyclists.” 14 15 THE FACTS 16 17

¶ [8] The prosecution has provided a summary of facts which is not disputed. 18 19

¶ [9] On Wednesday the 8th March 2023, at about midnight, the defendant was driving his Jeep Grand 20 Cherokee bearing registration plate number 190 348, along West Bay Road heading north. The 21 defendant resided at an area off West Bay Road and was heading in the direction of his home. 22 There were two passengers in the vehicle, a male and female. 23 24

¶ [10] Mr. Hiwet was riding his bicycle in the bike lane on the left side of the road. He was also 25 heading north. In the vicinity of Queens Court plaza, the Jeep collided with the bicycle, causing 26 Mr. Hiwet to be dislodged from it and to fall. Mr. Hiwet sustained multiple injuries from which 27 he died. A postmortem examination conducted by Dr. Jyoti concluded that the cause of death 28 was craniocerebral and cervical vertebral injury due to motor vehicle accident. 29 30

¶ [11] The defendant did not stop his vehicle at the scene although both his passengers told him that 31 he had hit a cyclist. The female passenger in his vehicle began to scream at him and a female 32 250702 - R v Samir Jaffer Bandali: Ind. 50 of 2024. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 4 of 14 taxi driver drove in front of and into the path of his vehicle and also shouted at him. At that 1 point he stopped his vehicle in the vicinity of the parking lot of a hotel premises. This was some 2 distance away from the scene of the incident. The female passenger walked back to the scene 3 and provided information to the police. 4 5

¶ [12] The defendant did not return to the scene. Instead, he abandoned the Jeep Cherokee in the 6 parking lot of some condominiums, and he and his male passenger made their way to the 7 defendant’s apartment where he went to his bed. He was awakened by the police some hours 8 later and was arrested by PC Orville Harrison at approximately 5:05 a.m. He was subsequently 9 taken to the Cayman Islands Detention Center. He was breathalyzed and a reading of .152 10 percent was obtained. 11 12

¶ [13] In an interview under caution in the presence of his attorney on the 8th March 2023 the 13 defendant said that since he bought the vehicle, he had always left it unlocked with the keys 14 inside. This is because he considers the Cayman Islands to be a safe place. He said that when 15 he woke up that morning, his car was not outside his home. In exercise of his legal right, he 16 declined to answer questions put to him by the Police. 17 18

¶ [14] The evidence gathered from the investigation includes that shortly before the incident the 19 defendant and friends had been to at least two liquor license premises where they had alcoholic 20 beverages. 21 22

¶ [15] The Jeep Grand Cherokee was uninsured at the time of the fatal collision, the certificate of 23 insurance having expired on the 28th September 2021. The registration of the vehicle had also 24 expired at the material time. It was unregistered from the 26th February 2022. The certificate of 25 roadworthiness expired from the 23rd April 2022. 26 27

¶ [16] The scene and vehicle were examined by Accident Reconstructionist and Crash Analysts Mr. 28 Collin Redden and PS Lenford Butler. Mr. Redden concluded that the fatal collision occurred 29 when the deceased was riding his bike north on West Bay Road in the bike lane next to the 30 sidewalk when the Jeep Cherokee which was also heading north in the left lane at speed veered 31 to the left into the bike lane. The left front corner and side of the Jeep made contact with the 32 250702 - R v Samir Jaffer Bandali: Ind. 50 of 2024. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 5 of 14 rear and right side of the bike, compressing the rear rim and tire and causing it to separate from 1 the axle mounts. The bike and rider were projected up onto the sidewalk at an angle where they 2 travelled to final rest by the hedges with the bike partly on the sidewalk and the rider just ahead 3 of it. 4 5

¶ [17] Mr. Redden calculated the average speed of the Jeep Cherokee prior to its collision with the 6 bike using two fixed points of reference from the Closed Circuit Television Footage (“CCTV”) 7 footage and arrived at an average speed of 47.25 mph. 8 9 ANTECEDENT HISTORY 10 11

¶ [18] The defendant has four previous traffic convictions for which he was fined. Three are for 12 speeding, two in 2019 and one in 2021. The fourth is for using/keeping a vehicle on a road 13 which is required to be licensed. 14 15 SOCIAL INQUIRY REPORT 16 17

¶ [19] The Department of Community Rehabilitation has provided a Social Inquiry Report dated 14th 18 May 2025 in respect of the defendant (“SIR”) This provides details of the defendants’ 19 background and history. The Court takes into account everything said therein in favour of the 20 defendant. The defendant is thirty eight years old and is married with no children. He reported 21 growing up in a close knit and supportive family unit with no abusive incidents. There is no 22 history of problematic bahaviours or antisocial tendencies. There was a period of difficult peer 23 group relationships while at high school, but he remained focused, maintained a strong 24 academic performance and graduated as an honour roll student. He later went on to complete 25 tertiary education studies. 26 27

¶ [20] The defendant relocated to the Cayman Islands in 2018 for a work opportunity. This proved to 28 be a productive one but since the incident in 2023, there have been challenges from negative 29 publicity. This has led to the loss of clients and the eventual collapse of his cryptocurrency 30 business. He does engage in some freelance work, but this is on an irregular basis. He is 31 250702 - R v Samir Jaffer Bandali: Ind. 50 of 2024. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 6 of 14 concerned that should he be incarcerated his wife will not be able to manage financially on her 1 own. 2 3

¶ [21] He is actively involved in the community and volunteers with several organisations including 4 one which supports persons with disabilities and another which is engaged in animal welfare. 5 6

¶ [22] He underwent surgery in December 2024 for a medical condition and continues in recovery. 7 He has undertaken counselling in the aftermath of the incident having experienced depression 8 and low mood. He reports having no memory between the time of leaving the restaurant that 9 evening and arriving home. He says that he has no memory of the incident or of how it occurred. 10 He says that he continues to struggle to comprehend his decision to drive that night, which he 11 regards as the greatest mistake in his life. He has stopped drinking alcohol. He expresses 12 remorse and says that he has reached out to the family of the victim to offer an apology. 13 14

¶ [23] The Probation Officer records: - 15 16 “Reflecting on the offence, Mr. Bandali described the past few years as the most difficult 17 period of his life. He expressed remorse and regret, stating that he has always been strongly 18 opposed to drunk driving and is deeply disappointed in himself. He acknowledged the 19 gravity of the outcome stating that “the worst possible thing that could happen due to drunk 20 driving did happen” ….. he conveyed that no sentence imposed by the Court could equal 21 the guilt he now carries.” 22 23

¶ [24] The defendants’ overall risk of re-offending was assessed as very low. 24 25 CHARACTER REFERENCES 26 27

¶ [25] Three character references have been provided from persons who have known the defendant 28 for some years. The Court has read these and takes them into account. The defendant is 29 described as having made a significant contribution to the Cayman Islands through his work in 30 the community in the sector of digital assets and financial technology. He is said to be 31 heartbroken and stricken with remorse following the incident. He is described as a person of 32 integrity, reliability and kindness who is regularly depended on by others. 33 250702 - R v Samir Jaffer Bandali: Ind. 50 of 2024. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 7 of 14 1 THE SUBMISSIONS 2 3

¶ [26] It is accepted by both Counsel that the approach to sentencing as set out in the Cayman Islands 4 Sentencing Guidelines is to assess the level of culpability. This is done by evaluating the 5 quality of the driving involved and the degree of danger that it foreseeably created. 6 7

¶ [27] The prosecution drew the Courts’ attention to the case of R v. Nicholas Patrick Tibbetts1, a 8 decision of Dame Linda Dobbs, J (Acting) of December 2016 as helpful. 9 10

¶ [28] In that case the defendant’s car struck the bicycle of a cyclist in the vicinity of the roundabout 11 at Kings Gym in George Town. The cyclist was thrown from the bicycle backwards onto the 12 bonnet of the car and into the front windscreen. The car went over the bicycle, dragged it some 13 distance and continued with the cyclist still on top of the car before he was projected off of it. 14 The defendant did not stop. Shortly thereafter, he tried to have his vehicle repaired. In a 15 subsequent interview with the Police the defendant said that he had taken some Benadryl for 16 his allergies and had also gone out with friends and had rum and water. He had been out until 17 about 2:30am. He claimed that he had been feeling drowsy. The Court found that the incident 18 could not be classified as momentary inattention because having clipped the cyclist and the 19 cyclist having landed on top of the trunk of the car, the defendant continued driving on the hard 20 shoulder of the road, running over and dragging the bicycle with the cyclist still on top of the 21 car. 22 23

¶ [29] The conclusion was that this was driving falling not far short of dangerous driving and was at 24 the highest level of culpability. The Court applied a starting point of 15 months custody and 25 sentenced the defendant to 8 months imprisonment. This was arrived at by increasing the 26 sentence from the starting point by 3 months for the aggravating factor of failing to stop, 27 decreasing by 6 months for mitigating circumstances and decreasing by one third for the guilty 28 plea. 29 30 31 1 Grand Court Unreported Judgment, Ind. 71 of 2015, dated 16th December 2015 250702 - R v Samir Jaffer Bandali: Ind. 50 of 2024. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 8 of 14

¶ [30] The prosecution submits that the culpability in the instant case by reference to the Cayman 1 Islands Sentencing Guidelines is high with a starting point of 30 months and a sentence range 2 of 18 months to 4 years custody. It is submitted that there are six aggravating factors, failing to 3 stop, the consumption of alcohol, the expired registration, insurance and road worthiness 4 certificates and the previous traffic convictions. 5 6

¶ [31] The defence submitted that while in similar circumstances in the case of Tibbetts, the Court 7 found that the case fell into the top most category of culpability, there is a distinction with this 8 case because there was no interaction with the cycle or rider after the initial contact by the 9 vehicle. Counsel submits that the principle is as set out in s.4 of the Alternative Sentencing Act 10 (2008 Revision) that “a sentence should be similar or proportionate to sentences imposed on 11 similar convicted persons for similar offences committed in similar circumstances”. 12 13

¶ [32] It is therefore submitted by defence Counsel that an equivalent or lower starting point to that 14 imposed in the case of Tibbetts may be appropriate in this case. Counsel urges that noting the 15 difference with that case, a proper starting point in the instant case is the middle category of 16 culpability of 15 months imprisonment. 17 18

¶ [33] While the sentence in the case of Tibbetts is suggested as a yard stick, it is noted that there 19 appears to be a distinction in that there is no mention of the element of speed in that case. Speed 20 is a factor in the present case. This is a significant difference. Additionally, that sentence was 21 imposed in 2016. The United Kingdom Sentencing Council Guidelines was referenced where 22 the maximum sentence is 5 years imprisonment which is lower than in the Cayman Islands. 23 The starting point then suggested for a case at the highest level of culpability was 15 months’ 24 custody. It is of significance that this has changed in the United Kingdom where as of July 2023 25 the starting point for a culpability A offence is 24 months with a range of sentence of 12 months 26 to 4 years custody. 27 28

¶ [34] In light of the reference to the case of Tibbetts I have reviewed and brought to Counsel’s 29 attention several cases in the same date range as set out below. These highlight the differing 30 circumstances and sentences imposed by the Grand Court for this offence. Counsel have been 31 afforded an opportunity to make further submissions on these cases. 32 250702 - R v Samir Jaffer Bandali: Ind. 50 of 2024. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 9 of 14 1

¶ [35] In the case of R v Anastasia Watson2, the defendant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment 2 and disqualified from driving for 3 years following a guilty plea to the offence of Causing 3 Death by Careless Driving. 4 5

¶ [36] The facts were that the defendant had driven her motor vehicle at speed while approaching a 6 bend on Rum Point Road. The vehicle crashed and her passenger who was a close friend was 7 killed. The Court applied the United Kingdom Sentencing Council Guidelines. This was not 8 a case of momentary inattention. There had been prolonged deliberate excessive speeding up 9 to 80 mph on a road known to the defendant. The Court adopted the starting point of 15 months 10 for the most serious category of careless driving being driving falling not far short of dangerous 11 driving with a range of 26 weeks to 3 years custody. The Court said that if this was in error, 12 then the upper end of the second category with a range of a High Community Order to 2 years 13 custody would apply. There was strong personal mitigation and remorse. The Court in applying 14 the Guidelines said that there would be an uplift to reflect the higher statutory maximum in this 15 jurisdiction so that a 15 month starting point in the United Kingdom would equate to a 21 16 month starting point in this jurisdiction. 17 18

¶ [37] In the case of R v Fitzroy Roach3 the defendant upon his guilty plea to Causing Death by 19 Careless Driving was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment. 20 21

¶ [38] The defendant had been driving his Hyundai H1 Bus north on Esterley Tibbetts Highway. The 22 Bus crossed over to the opposite lane and crashed into an oncoming vehicle killing the driver. 23 There was no alcohol or mobile/distraction. However, the defendant was driving other than in 24 accordance with his license which was an aggravating factor. The prosecution alleged that he 25 had fallen asleep. The Court said that on the basis either that he had fallen asleep or had 26 significant distraction, the case fell short of the most serious category of the Guidelines. Nor 27 was it a momentary lapse. It was categorised as a 'less serious instance of careless driving’. 28 29 30 2 Grand Court Unreported Judgment, Ind. 48 of 2016, dated 23rd February 2018 3 Grand Court Unreported Judgment, Ind. 20 of 2013, dated 15th March 2016 250702 - R v Samir Jaffer Bandali: Ind. 50 of 2024. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 10 of 14

¶ [39] In the case of R v Jefferson Laureano4, the 22 year old defendant was sentenced to 16 months 1 imprisonment on his guilty plea to Causing Death by Careless Driving. He drove his motor car 2 into the back of another vehicle. Both drivers lost control and their vehicles crashed. The other 3 driver died. There was no alcohol. The defendant left the scene due to injury and was later 4 arrested. He blamed the deceased for overtaking his vehicle at high speed just before the crash. 5 He expressed remorse and had a relevant previous conviction for careless driving. The 6 offending was assessed to be an intermediate case of causing death by careless driving based 7 upon unsafe overtaking. The defendant said that he had been travelling at a speed of 60 miles 8 per hour. The speed at collision impact was assessed by the accident reconstruction expert to 9 be 72.69 miles per hour. 10 11

¶ [40] At the other end of the spectrum is the case of R v Anthony Welsey Scott Jr5. Following a guilty 12 plea to Causing Death by Careless Driving the defendant was sentenced to a two-year probation 13 order. The Grand Court (Carter J.) treated the offending as falling within the lowest category, 14 a case of momentary inattention where the defendant had been driving too close to the vehicle 15 in front of him. When faced with a manoeuvre by the vehicle in front of him he swerved to the 16 left and veered off the road to avoid a collision. In so doing he collided with a utility pole and 17 caused the death of his passenger. The defendant was seriously injured in the collision. 18 19

¶ [41] In the case of Dilroy Linwood Watler v R6 the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal considered an 20 appeal against a sentence of 3 years and 4 months imprisonment imposed for the offence of 21 Causing Death by Careless Driving. 22 23

¶ [42] The appellant had been at a bar with his brother until eleven o clock on the evening of the 9th 24 August 2013. He was driving along Sea View road at a speed of 91.55 miles per hour. The 25 speed limit was 25 miles per hour. On approaching the bend, he crashed into a wall causing the 26 death of his brother and serious injuries to himself. In addition, the defendant had no driver’s 27 license and was driving the car without the consent of the owner. 28 29 4 Grand Court Unreported Judgment, Ind. 91 of 2015, dated 27th April 2016 5 Grand Court Unreported Judgment, Ind. 59 of 2017, dated 11th January 2018 6 CICA Appeal 2 /2017, Unreported Judgment dated 13th April 2018 250702 - R v Samir Jaffer Bandali: Ind. 50 of 2024. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 11 of 14

¶ [43] The Appellate Court said that it was difficult to conceive as to how the charge was not one of 1 Causing Death by Dangerous Driving given the level of speeding but that it is vital that the 2 Court makes clear that it was the lesser charge to which the defendant had pleaded guilty and 3 not a more serious offence. 4 5

¶ [44] The Grand Court had adopted a starting point of five years custody given the higher maximum 6 sentence in the Cayman Islands and the circumstances under which the appellant was driving. 7 The Appellate Court noted that while the sentence for Causing Death by Careless Driving is 8 higher in the Cayman Islands than in the United Kingdom, the position is different for the 9 offence of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving where the sentence is higher, 14 years rather 10 than 10 years. 11 12

¶ [45] The Appellate Court reviewed a number of sentences including in the case of R v Tyro7 a case 13 which fell within the most serious category of causing death by careless driving where two 14 people were killed. The correct starting point was said to be in the region of 3 years and the 15 sentence was reduced to one of 2 years or 24 months. 16 17

¶ [46] The Appellate Court concluded that in the case on appeal of Linwood Watler, the starting point 18 of 5 years adopted by the trial Judge in the case was substantially out of line with authorities in 19 both England and Wales and in the Cayman Islands. The Court concluded that the starting point 20 of 5 years was manifestly excessive and adopted a starting point in the region of 3 and 1/2 21 years. The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced to one of 2 ½ years or 30 months. 22 23

¶ [47] It is noted that the range of sentences from the cases reviwed is a probation order to 30 months 24 imprisonment. 25 26 SUBMISSIONS IN MITIGATION 27 28

¶ [48] Counsel for the defence submitted that the defendant is a man of good character, an enterprising 29 and well thought of individual in the community. He has suffered financially and professionally 30 as a result of the press reporting of this case. 31 7 [2011] 1 Cr. App. R (S) 250702 - R v Samir Jaffer Bandali: Ind. 50 of 2024. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 12 of 14 1

¶ [49] Counsel submitted that the defendant has a serious health issue. He has a degenerative spinal 2 problem which required him to have surgery and requires on going physiotherapy three times 3 per week. Counsel said that the prison authorities may be reluctant to have him in prison 4 because of the specialist treatment which he requires. Counsel submits that while it is accepted 5 that the offending clearly passes the custody threshold and the defendant is fully expecting and 6 is prepared to serve a custodial sentence, this is not without difficulty given his health issues. 7 There is concern that his degeneration will be accelerated if he does not have access to needed 8 care. Counsel asked the Court to consider whether as an alternative to a custodial sentence there 9 can be a sentence of a 24 hour curfew which would allow the defendant to continue with his 10 treatments. Counsel said that the prison is at capacity and there are issues with accommodating 11 people with specialist needs. 12 13 THE SENTENCE 14 15

¶ [50] The Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines for this offence were promulgated in 2020. They 16 provide for a starting point of 30 months for the highest level of culpability. 17 18

¶ [51] The harm caused in this case as in all cases of this kind is immeasurable. It is a life lost and 19 profound impact on families, friends and colleagues who are left to mourn the untimely passing 20 of a loved one. This is a tragedy caused in no small part by an irresponsible decision by the 21 defendant to drive after consuming alcohol. The level of his consumption must surely have 22 been such as impaired his ability to drive safely. The Guidelines state that a driver is expected 23 to take extra care when driving near vulnerable road users which includes cyclists and 24 pedestrians. The defendant did the very opposite. His vehicle veered into the bike lane and path 25 of the cyclist travelling ahead of him. To compound matters he did not stop until he was shouted 26 at, and his pathway was blocked by a passing motorist who had seen what had occurred. The 27 offending is serious and the custody threshold is firmly passed. It is aggravated by the fact that 28 for many months the defendant ignored the requirements to insure and register his vehicle. 29 30

¶ [52] Defence Counsel accepts that there are three determinants of seriousness present in this case 31 namely: - 32 250702 - R v Samir Jaffer Bandali: Ind. 50 of 2024. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 13 of 14 1 a. Consumption of alcohol where this impaired the defendant’s ability to drive 2 safely. 3 b. Driving above the speed limit. 4 c. Failing to have regard for the cyclist, a vulnerable road user. 5 6

¶ [53] Given the number of determinants which are present in this case and the potency of them, the 7 driving plainly falls into the highest category of culpability for careless driving, which is 8 driving falling not far short of dangerous driving. 9 10

¶ [54] The starting point is therefore 30 months custody. 11 12

¶ [55] Defence Counsel also accepts that there are aggravating features of leaving the scene of an 13 accident and driving on expired documents. 14 15

¶ [56] The fact that the defendant has previous convictions for speeding and a documentary offence 16 was not known at the time of the earlier Goodyear hearing. In addition, and in response to the 17 Courts’ inquiry defence Counsel accepts that it would be proper for the Court to consider the 18 previous offences to be relevant. 19 20

¶ [57] It was initially asserted by the prosecution that the defendant did not have a full driver’s license 21 and was driving on a provisional license. However, a full license has been produced to the 22 Court which was valid from the7th March 2019 to the 7th March 2024. 23 24

¶ [58] From the starting point of 30 months the offending is aggravated by the fact that the defendant 25 left the scene (3 months) and all the documents for the vehicle had expired, in particular there 26 was no insurance for the vehicle (2 months). There are also relevant previous offences of 27 speeding and using a vehicle without the required document (2 months). All these serve to 28 aggravate the offence by 7 months to one of 37 months. 29 30

¶ [59] In mitigation, account is taken of everything written and said in the defendants’ favour, the 31 detailed SIR, the character references and the submissions of his Counsel. Defence Counsel 32 urged upon the Court the following: - 33 250702 - R v Samir Jaffer Bandali: Ind. 50 of 2024. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 14 of 14 i. A man of previous exceptional character. 1 ii. A significant degree of insight into and remorse for the consequences of his 2 actions. 3 iii. Steps taken to address contributory factors (total abstinence from alcohol and 4 counselling). 5 iv. Ill health. 6 v. Financial and emotional toll. 7 vi. Well thought of by others. 8 vii. Very low risk of re-offending. 9 10

¶ [60] The Court does accept these factors as mitigating factors. There is by all accounts genuine 11 remorse and acceptance of responsibility which has led to a change in behaviour. The defendant 12 has serious health issues and requires specialist care. This is a significant mitigating factor. 13 14

¶ [61] Consequently, the sentence is reduced by reason of mitigation to 21 months and with credit of 15 one third for his guilty plea to a final sentence of 14 months imprisonment. 16 17

¶ [62] Given the serious nature of this case, notwithstanding his serious health issues, the Court cannot 18 accede to the request of defence Counsel for a curfew order as an alternative to a sentence of 19 immediate custody. A life has been lost and but for the particular mitigating circumstances in 20 this case, the sentence would have been significantly higher. The Prison Authorities are asked 21 to provide assistance with the defendant’s health care requirements. 22 23

¶ [63] The defendant is disqualified from driving for a period of 3 years following his release from 24 prison. 25 26 Dated this the 2nd day of July 2025 27 28 The Hon. Justice Cheryll Richards KC 29 Judge of the Grand Court 30 31