R v Justin Jackson and Eric Soto - Sentence Judgment

¶ 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 1 of 26 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 1 CRIMINAL DIVISION 2 3 INDICTMENT NO: 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022 4 5 6 7 R 8 9 V. 10 11 JUSTIN KYLE JACKSON 12 AND 13 ERIC WILLIAMS-SOTO 14 15 16 Appearances: Ms. Candia James-Malcolm, Deputy Director, and Ms. Hema 17 Soondarsingh, Crown Counsel, Office of the Director of Public 18 Prosecutions for the Prosecution 19 20 Mrs. Sallie Bennett-Jenkins KC and Ms. Amelia Fosuhene for 21 the Defendant Jackson 22 23 Mr. Charles Miskin KC and Mr. Keith Myers for the 24 Defendant Williams-Soto 25 26 Before: The Hon. Justice Cheryll Richards KC 27 28 Submissions Heard: 20th March 2024 and 18th April 2024 29 30 Sentence Judgment: 19th April 2024 31 32 33 Criminal Law - Sentencing - Manslaughter contrary to Section 180 of the Penal Code (2021 34 Revision), Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines, Possession of Unlicensed Firearm contrary to 35 s.15 of the Firearms Act (2008 Revision). 36 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 2 of 26 1 SENTENCE JUDGMENT 2 3

¶ [1] The defendants Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto are before the Court for 4 sentencing on the joint Indictment 34 and 93/2022. They were convicted after trial by 5 jury of the offences of Manslaughter and Possession of an Unlicensed Firearm. 6 7

¶ [2] Count One of the Indictment charged the offence of Murder contrary to s.181 of the 8 Penal Code (2021 Revision). The Jury convicted of the alternative offence of 9 Manslaughter contrary to s.180 of the Penal Code. The defendants therefore fall to be 10 sentenced for the unlawful killing of Harry Elliott Jr. on the 25th April 2022 at 190 School 11 Road in George Town. 12 13

¶ [3] The maximum penalty for the offence of Manslaughter is life imprisonment. 14 15

¶ [4] Count Two charges the defendants with the offence of Possession of an Unlicensed 16 Firearm at the said date and place contrary to s.15 (1) and (5) of the Firearms Act (2008 17 Revision). The maximum penalty for this offence is twenty years imprisonment and a 18 fine. 19 20

¶ [5] By s. 39 of the Firearms Act in respect of a machine gun, sub-machine gun, rifle, shot 21 gun, pistol, or any lethal barreled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other missile 22 can be discharged there is a minimum sentence on conviction after trial of 10 years 23 imprisonment and 7 years on a guilty plea. The minimum sentence may not be imposed 24 where the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances relating to the 25 offence or to the offender which justify it’s not doing so. 26 27

¶ [6] The defendant Justin Jackson also appears for sentencing on Indictment 43/22 for two 28 offences of Possession of an Unlicensed Firearm contrary to s.15 (1) and (5) of the 29 Firearms Act (2008 Revision). 30 31 32 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 3 of 26

¶ [7] The particulars of Count One are that he on or before the 29th day of April 2022 in the 1 Cayman Islands had in his possession a firearm, namely a Taurus 9mm semi-automatic 2 pistol which was not under and in accordance with the terms of a Firearm Users 3 (Restricted) Licence. 4 5

¶ [8] Count Two of that Indictment charges him with Possession of an Unlicensed Firearm 6 (Ammunition) contrary to s.15 (1) and (5) of the Firearms Act (2008 Revision). 7 8

¶ [9] The particulars are that he on or before the 29th day of April 2022 in the Cayman Islands 9 had in his possession a firearm (ammunition), namely nine rounds of 9mm ammunition 10 which was not under and in accordance with the terms of a Firearm Users (Restricted) 11 Licence. 12 13

¶ [10] The defendant entered pleas of guilty to these two offences on the 27th May 2022. This 14 was the first mention date, and it is accepted that he pleaded at the first reasonable 15 opportunity. 16 17 INDICTMENT 34 AND 93/2022 – MANSLAUGHTER AND POSSESSION OF UNLICENSED FIREARM 18 THE FACTS 19 20

¶ [11] The brief facts on the joint Indictment are these. At about 8pm on the evening of the 25th 21 April 2022, the two defendants went to rob a betting or numbers shop situated at 190 22 School Road in George Town. This gambling activity is illegal in the Cayman Islands. 23 The deceased was a customer who was present at the shop at the material time. He was 24 about to leave. The door which was operated by a buzzer was opened for him by the 25 operator of the shop, Mr. Keron Cupid. The defendants were entering the shop at the 26 time. The defendant Jackson was in front. He was unmasked. The defendant Williams- 27 Soto was behind him and was masked. The defendant Jackson was seen by a witness to 28 reach for his waist. He pulled out a firearm and according to the witness, he was heard to 29 select a shot in the firearm and the firearm discharged. Mr. Elliot, who was in close 30 proximity to the door was shot to the head. He received an injury from which he died. 31 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 4 of 26

¶ [12] Closed Circuit Television (“CCTV”) footage showed that the vehicle in which the men 1 went to the scene had driven past the location that evening on three occasions prior to the 2 incident. After the incident, the men left the scene on foot. They re-entered the vehicle 3 which was tracked by means of CCTV camera footage to Kesington Close in the George 4 Town Area. There they alighted and both men were seen wiping down the vehicle. They 5 were together with a third man identified as Caine Thomas. 6 7 VICTIM IMPACT REPORT 8 9

¶ [13] The Department of Community Rehabilitation (“DCR”) has provided a Victim Impact 10 Report dated 12th January 2024, (“VIR”). Statements are attached to the VIR from 11 members of the family of Mr. Elliott Jr. In summary these speak to the lifelong impact 12 that his death has caused. 13 14

¶ [14] The victim’s father died one week after the victim. After being told of his son’s death, he 15 suffered a heart attack from which he did not recover. 16 17

¶ [15] The victims’ wife details the feelings of sadness, heartbreak and devastation felt on 18 hearing the news. The deceased is described as a hardworking law-abiding citizen who 19 served in the public service as a prison officer for thirty-six years. He had retired and was 20 just beginning to enjoy his retirement. 21 22

¶ [16] His sisters and brothers speak of their brokenness and the impact on their family of the 23 loss. His mother speaks of losing her beloved son and the loss of her husband which 24 followed thereafter. She states that she is haunted by what has happened to her son and 25 is grief stricken. His daughter speaks of his mentorship of young people, his daily care 26 for his mother and father and his care for those he loved. She states: - 27 28 “My family and his grandkids will never understand why you did what you did, but 29 we want you to know that it HURTS ... so much. No one should have to lose a loved 30 one in such a way. So instant! And without the chance to say goodbye. My family 31 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 5 of 26 and his friends miss Junior dearly every day. What you did was wrong, and the 1 court will recommend the best penalty to match your crime. I cannot control that. 2 What I can control is my feelings. I am upset that I can no longer hug, speak to, 3 share memories, seek his advice, enjoy his company and laughter, and physically 4 see his grandchildren grow up. But spiritually, he lives on, always present, 5 watching, guiding and in our hearts forever. 6 7 I do not HATE you. I hope you take this opportunity of life to reflect on your life, 8 the crime that you committed, and the hurt you caused so many people. I sincerely 9 hope that you make changes to your life, atone for your crime, and someday become 10 a contributing member of society. My father did not meet his last grandchild; 11 however, you may have kids and grandkids eventually. I hope that you think of my 12 late father “Harry Wentworth Elliott Jr.” and cherish the opportunities he did not 13 have.”1 14 15 ANTECEDENT HISTORY - JUSTIN KYLE JACKSON 16 17

¶ [17] The defendant Jackson has two previous convictions. One is for an offence of Wounding 18 with Intent for which he was sentenced to 6 and ½ years imprisonment on the 22nd 19 February 2017. 20 21 SOCIAL INQUIRY REPORT - JUSTIN KYLE JACKSON 22 23

¶ [18] The DCR has provided a Social Inquiry Report (“SIR”) in respect of the defendant 24 Jackson dated 11th January 2024. The Court has read this in its entirety and takes into 25 account everything said therein in favour of the defendant although all of the SIR is not 26 set out herein. 27 28 1 Victim Impact Statement dated 9th January 2024 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 6 of 26

¶ [19] The defendant is twenty-five years old with one child, a daughter who is resident 1 overseas. She is ten years old. 2 3

¶ [20] The SIR describes a troubled childhood in which there was a broken home. The defendant 4 witnessed domestic violence and got into fights at school. Attempts to resettle overseas 5 with one parent led to association with pro-criminal peers, arrests and placement in youth 6 rehabilitation institutions. There was gang involvement and some handling of guns. 7 8

¶ [21] Upon his return to the Cayman Islands the defendant’s behaviour continued to deteriorate 9 and at age eighteen he was convicted and sentenced as referenced above. The Probation 10 Officer notes that the sentence is still active due to conditional release breaches. 11 12

¶ [22] In December 2021, the defendant was the victim of a wounding where he received 13 injuries to his eye. He has made a full recovery from this. However, according to the SIR 14 this marked a further decline in his behaviour. His employment history is not extensive 15 due to incarceration and limited work opportunities because of his immigration status. 16 While in custody he has held some employment in the Prison. 17 18

¶ [23] The defendant reported that outside of Prison he had no legitimate source of income and 19 would earn a living from fishing and by “extorting money from persons who sold 20 numbers”. This was on the basis that he would not be reported because the actions of 21 those persons were also illegal. He would make $1,000.00 per week doing this. 22 23

¶ [24] There is a history of substance abuse on a daily basis. There is a report of emotional 24 issues which began while the defendant was overseas. Page 6 of the SIR details this as 25 well as the assistance of the Counselling service at the Prison and the start of a plan to 26 assist him in this regard. A psychological report recorded the need for increasing his skills 27 to cope with stress, anger and other negative emotional states as well as triggers for 28 aggression/violence and substance misuse. 29 30 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 7 of 26

¶ [25] The Officer states that given his past history, the current matters before the Court 1 evidence a further escalation in pro-criminal thinking and behaviours. He has a history 2 of non-compliance while in custody and with rehabilitative orders. This is in respect of 3 his previous sentence and since being on remand. There have been reports of assaults in 4 the Prison. 5 6

¶ [26] The defendant expressed remorse for what he did and said that he wants to apologise to 7 the family of Mr. Elliott for putting them through this. The Officer states that the 8 defendant has accepted responsibility for his actions and that: - 9 10 “Whilst Mr. Jackson maintained the offence was a “mistake” and he did not intend 11 for this outcome, his lifestyle is such that violent acts are commonplace, including 12 the loss of his friends through gun violence. His pro-criminal thinking, willingness 13 to use firearms, disregard for his licence conditions and general disregard for law 14 and order would suggest he is willing to utilize any means for his own gain, with no 15 regard for the impact on the direct victims and local community.”2 16 17

¶ [27] The defendant was assessed as being at very high risk of re-offending with all eight of 18 the criminogenic factors in the Very High or High category. The Officer states that there 19 is evidence of antisocial behaviour dating back to his childhood and that he has continued 20 to demonstrate violent behaviours and disregard for any sanctions imposed including 21 license conditions and Prison regimen. 22 23

¶ [28] The Officer also states: - 24 25 “Mr. Jackson is assessed as posing a very high risk of reoffending. His criminal 26 history demonstrates a pattern of violent behavior, escalating in seriousness, and 27 includes the use of weapons. It is therefore assessed that his actions have caused 28 long term physical and psychological harm to both direct and indirect victims. Mr. 29 2 Page 12 of the SIR 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 8 of 26 Jackson has not been deterred by previous sanctions and failed to comply with 1 previous sentences. At this time, he has very few protective/stabilising factors. The 2 psychological report prepared in 2020 provides insight into Mr. Jackson’s 3 personality traits and the subsequent impact on his behaviour. The 4 recommendations made in that report remain valid and it is assessed that 5 rehabilitative treatment, intervention and therapy are critical to reducing risk and 6 reoffending and harm. Mr. Jackson’s continued incarceration will serve to protect 7 the public and punish his behaviour whilst providing access to rehabilitative 8 interventions.”3 9 10 ANTECEDENT HISTORY – ERIC WILLIAMS-SOTO 11 12

¶ [29] The defendant Eric Williams-Soto has no previous convictions as an adult. The Probation 13 Office records are that on the 16th November 2018 the defendant received a one-year 14 Probation Order for offences of carrying an offensive weapon, possession of ganja, 15 consumption of ganja and cultivation of ganja. He successfully completed the Probation 16 Order, and no conviction was recorded against him. 17 18 SOCIAL INQUIRY REPORT – ERIC WILLIAMS-SOTO 19 20

¶ [30] The DCR has provided a SIR dated 26th February 2024 in respect of the defendant 21 Williams-Soto. The Court has read this in its entirety and takes into account everything 22 said therein in favour of the defendant although all of the SIR is not set out herein. 23 24

¶ [31] The defendant is twenty-two years old. There were no childhood issues. He graduated 25 from high school and attended the Further Education Center where he completed an 26 electrical course and the core subjects of Mathematics and English. He was employed 27 from age sixteen years with his father doing boat maintenance. He held two other jobs 28 before being arrested for these offences. He is described by the Probation Officer as 29 3 3 Page 15 of the SIR 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 9 of 26 having addiction issues given his use of ganja from an early age of sixteen years through 1 to a recent adjudication as a result of substance use while on remand. 2 3

¶ [32] Community contacts describe him as a quiet, reserved and introverted individual. It is 4 said that he is a person who lacks maturity and got caught up in the offence. It is also said 5 that he became involved in bad company some two years ago. 6 7

¶ [33] The defendant expressed remorse for his actions and stated to the Officer that he is sorry 8 and deeply regrets being involved. The Officer states her view that it appears that the 9 defendant minimised his part in the offence and placed a greater part of the blame on 10 others involved. The defendant’s view is that he was being used. Nevertheless, he 11 accepted responsibility for making the decision to commit the offence of robbery. 12 13

¶ [34] His overall risk of re-offending was assessed as high due to a number of criminogenic 14 factors. It is said that he demonstrates an attitude supportive of crime but there appears 15 to be no pattern of genaralised trouble. The Officer’s recommendation is that while in 16 custody he would benefit from engaging with rehabilitative interventions available to 17 him as well as counselling services. 18 19 CHARACTER REFERENCES 20 21

¶ [35] The Court has been provided with two letters on behalf of the defendant Williams-Soto. 22 Both of these have been read in full and taken into account in favour of the defendant. 23 24

¶ [36] In a letter dated 20th March 2024, his parents, Jose and Boriquis Williams express the 25 sorrow and regret which they feel because of the “tragic mistake which has changed the 26 course of many lives”. 27 28

¶ [37] They ask for mercy and consideration in the sentencing of the defendant. They say that 29 this incident is not reflective of the child they raised. They say that they have seen his 30 profound and genuine remorse and weight of guilt which he carries every day for his 31 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 10 of 26 actions and that he fully acknowledges the gravity of his mistake and the irreversible pain 1 it has caused. They urge the Court to accept that despite his actions he is at his core a 2 good person who has lost his way. They pledge to support him through his journey 3 towards rehabilitation and believe that with the right support he can become a positive 4 force in the community. They ask for a decision which offers hope and healing and a 5 second chance at life for him. 6 7

¶ [38] The defendant’s sister in a letter dated 20th March 2024 states that the defendant’s actions 8 do not define his entire character or his potential for rehabilitation and says that he is 9 genuinely remorseful for his actions, fully understanding the pain and suffering that they 10 have caused. 11 12 SUBMISSIONS ON MANSLAUGHTER 13 14

¶ [39] All Counsel referred the Court to the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines for the 15 offence of Manslaughter by reason of an unlawful act. Under those Guidelines, High 16 Culpability is indicated by one of four factors. Three of these are: - 17 18 i. Death was caused in the course of an unlawful act which involved an intention 19 by the offender to cause harm falling just short of GBH. 20 ii. Death was caused in the course of an unlawful act which carried a high risk of 21 death or GBH which was or ought to have been obvious to the offender. 22 iii. Death was caused in the course of committing or escaping from a serious 23 offence in which the offender played more than a minor role. 24 25

¶ [40] The prosecution submits that this offending falls into the category of High Culpability. It 26 is submitted that death was caused in the course of an unlawful act which carried a high 27 risk of death or grievous bodily harm which was or ought to have been obvious to the 28 offender. It is also submitted that death was caused in the course of committing or 29 escaping from a serious offence in which the offender played more than a minor role. 30 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 11 of 26 1

¶ [41] Counsel submits that the defendants were part of a joint enterprise to commit a robbery 2 while one was armed with a loaded firearm. Although the defendant Williams-Soto was 3 not armed he was there to play a crucial role to assist with the intended robbery through 4 intimidation. 5 6

¶ [42] The submission is therefore that this is a Category 2 offence with a high level of harm 7 and high culpability with a starting point of 12 years and range of sentence of 8 to 16 8 years custody. 9 10

¶ [43] Defence Counsel do not disagree with this submission. Mr. Miskin KC on behalf of the 11 defendant Williams-Soto submitted that it is accepted that Manslaughter is always an 12 offence with a high level of harm. Counsel submitted that by their verdict the jury found 13 that the defendant Williams-Soto knowing that Jackson was armed with a loaded firearm, 14 participated in the offence of Manslaughter by being a party to the use of the gun to scare 15 or frighten people in the numbers shop in the course of the robbery. 16 17

¶ [44] Counsel submitted that the two high culpability factors set out by the prosecution are 18 essentially the same and should not be added to each other. Counsel also said that when 19 assessing the culpability of Mr. Williams-Soto, regard should be had to the fact that he 20 did not have physical control of the gun and his actions did not contribute to the pulling 21 of the trigger. The prosecution accepts in the case of Mr. Williams-Soto that he played a 22 lesser role in the offending but it is not accepted that this is a minor role. The 23 prosecution’s submission is that he was a willing participant in the planned robbery. 24 25

¶ [45] The Court accepts the submission of all Counsel that this offending is one of a high-level 26 degree of harm and high culpability. The starting point is thus 12 years imprisonment. 27 28 29 30 31 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 12 of 26 AGGRAVATING FACTORS 1 2

¶ [46] In respect of the defendant Jackson the prosecution submits that there are six aggravating 3 factors. Firstly, his previous conviction for the offence of Wounding with Intent and the 4 fact that he was on a conditional release license at the time of the instant offending. 5 Counsel also references the fact that he had been convicted on his own plea on Indictment 6 43/22 for Possession of an Unlicensed Firearm. 7 8

¶ [47] Counsel for the defendant Jackson, Mrs. Bennett-Jenkins KC does not disagree with the 9 submission as to his previous conviction for Wounding with Intent. Counsel said that it 10 is accepted that there was some planning and that this offence was committed whilst the 11 defendant was on license. 12 13

¶ [48] The prosecution also submits that there are five additional aggravating factors which 14 relate to both defendants: - 15 16 i. The use of weapons but avoiding double counting. 17 ii. The offence was committed in a public place. 18 iii. The offence was committed at night following unlawful entry into the premises. 19 iv. There was an attempt to conceal or dispose of evidence. 20 v. Death occurred in the context of an offence which was planned or premeditated. 21 22

¶ [49] Defence Counsel take issue with a number of these. Counsel for the defendant Jackson 23 submits that aside from the previous convictions for violence there are no significant 24 aggravating factors. It is submitted that the use of a weapon is accounted for by the 25 charge of Manslaughter. This was not a home invasion or an incident late at night. 26 27

¶ [50] Counsel for the defendant Williams-Soto submitted in summary that the aggravating 28 factors raised by the prosecution are either relatively minor or were already taken into 29 account in the culpability classification of the offence. It is submitted that the use of a 30 weapon, planning involving the use of a loaded weapon, and death occurring in the 31 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 13 of 26 context of an offence that was planned or premeditated are all reflected in the 1 classification of the offence. 2 3

¶ [51] Counsel submits that the attempt to conceal and dispose of evidence was fairly minor in 4 nature. It is argued that the fact that this took place in a public place does not particularly 5 aggravate the offence as it would for example, if the offence had taken place in a park 6 where children were present. This was not a nighttime robbery but one in the early hours 7 of the evening. While there was some planning, this was of the robbery and not of the 8 Manslaughter. 9 10 SUBMISSIONS IN MITIGATION – DEFENDANT JUSTIN JACKSON 11 12

¶ [52] In mitigation, Counsel for the defendant Jackson submitted that the Court should exercise 13 a degree of caution in forming a view as to the culpability of an offender who is 14 emotionally immature. Counsel points to the relative immaturity of Mr. Jackson despite 15 his chronological age of twenty-five years and the impact of others as “controller of him” 16 in relation to the offence. Reliance is placed on the information contained in the SIR as 17 setting out his developmental immaturity. Counsel asks the Court to note that his 18 education was disrupted, he was incarcerated from a young age, lacked emotional support 19 and has been experiencing depression for which he receives prescribed medication. 20 21

¶ [53] Counsel referred the Court to the case of R v ZA4 in relation to young offenders. The 22 English Court of Appeal therein stated: - 23 24 “It has been recognised for some time that the brains of young people are still 25 developing up to the age of 25, particularly in the areas of the frontal cortex and 26 hippocampus. These areas are the seat of emotional control, restraint, awareness 27 of risk and the ability to appreciate the consequences of one's own and others' 28 actions; in short, the processes of thought engaged in by, and the hallmark of, 29 mature and responsible adults. It is also known that adverse childhood experiences, 30 4 [2023] EWCA Crim 596 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 14 of 26 educational difficulties and mental health issues negatively affect the development 1 of those adult thought processes. Accordingly very particular considerations apply 2 to sentencing children and young people who commit offences. It is categorically 3 wrong to set about the sentencing of children and young people as if they are "mini- 4 adults". An entirely different approach is required.” 5 6

¶ [54] As to specific mitigation, Counsel submitted that the issue of a possible plea to the 7 offence of Manslaughter had been raised but this was not accepted by the prosecution. 8 No plea was in fact entered by the defendant to this offence, but it is submitted that the 9 Court should take account of this initial offer. 10 11

¶ [55] Counsel submitted that issue is taken with the prosecutions’ submission that the 12 defendant did not show remorse during his trial. Counsel states that they can attest to the 13 profound effect that this has had on him. He has ongoing and deep remorse. The 14 defendant knew the victim and regarded him with respect. 15 16

¶ [56] Counsel said that while duress is not suggested, the defendant maintains that there was 17 fear of and pressure from Caine Thomas. Mr. Thomas is said to have provided the weapon 18 which the defendant carried to the scene and to have accepted the return of it after the 19 incident. Counsel submitted that great pressure could be brought to bear because of the 20 defendant’s age and vulnerability. 21 22

¶ [57] Counsel referred to the SIR noting that the defendant had very few stabilising features in 23 his life. Counsel submitted that a perfect storm was created in his life. He had his 24 education disrupted. His home situation was such that his mother fled the home leaving 25 him without her care for a number of years. He was forced to seek refuge in the home of 26 a family friend. The destabilisation continued when, having rejoined his mother overseas 27 he was exposed to gang culture and additional disruption. Counsel submitted that at no 28 stage has he had the necessary interventions to address some of the issues in his life such 29 as psychological or psychiatric services. While chronologically older than his co- 30 defendant he may in fact be less mature. 31 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 15 of 26 1

¶ [58] Counsel invited the Court to take the view that death was a wholly unintended 2 consequence and not to crush all hope for the defendant. Counsel submitted that there is 3 a realistic prospect of the defendant changing and developing once he is given the 4 necessary treatment, interventions and cognitive behaviour therapy. 5 6 SUBMISSIONS IN MITIGATION – DEFENDANT ERIC WILLIAMS-SOTO 7 8

¶ [59] In mitigation on behalf of the defendant Williams-Soto it is submitted that the defendant 9 should be treated as a person of effective good character given that having successfully 10 completed his Probation Order, no conviction was recorded against him. The prosecution 11 takes no issue with this. 12 13

¶ [60] Counsel submitted that the general impression from the SIR is of a young man keeping 14 bad company and lacking the skills needed to remain out of trouble. The defendant is 15 said to be remorseful and to be capable of rehabilitation. His youth and immaturity is 16 raised as a significant factor in mitigation. Counsel referred the Court to the England and 17 Wales Sentencing Council Guidelines for Sentencing Children and Young People. 18 Paragraph 1 of those Guidelines sets out sentencing principles which a court must have 19 regard to when sentencing children or young people (i.e. those under age 18 at the date 20 of the finding of guilt). Paragraph 1.5 of those Guidelines states that the emotional and 21 developmental age of a young person is of equal importance to their chronological age if 22 not greater. Paragraph 4.5 in part reads: - 23 24 “There is an expectation that in general a child or young person will be dealt with 25 less severely than an adult offender. In part this is because children and young 26 people are unlikely to have the same experience and capacity as an adult to 27 understand the effect of their actions on other people or to appreciate the pain and 28 distress caused and because a child or young person may be less able to resist 29 temptation especially when peer pressure is exerted. …” 30 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 16 of 26 THE SENTENCE 1 2

¶ [61] By their verdict the Jury found that there was no intent on the part of the defendants to 3 kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The Jury convicted the defendants of the lesser 4 offence of Manslaughter. In so finding, the Jury found that both were joint participants 5 in an unlawful act using a loaded firearm which carried with it a high risk of death. 6 7

¶ [62] The offending in this case was of the most serious kind, clearly and firmly passing the 8 custody threshold. This was the result of a robbery which had been planned with 9 deliberate steps taken to execute it. There was assessment of the location prior to the 10 material time. There was the wearing of a mask by one defendant with the other 11 remaining without a mask clearly part and parcel of the plan to ensure that entry was 12 gained to the premises. The getaway vehicle waited nearby for quick access to return to 13 Kesington Close where the vehicle was cleaned. There is no evidence that the gun used 14 in the killing has been recovered. 15 16

¶ [63] The high-risk attendant upon the carrying of a loaded firearm would have been obvious 17 to all reasonable persons. Pointing it in the direction of a small, crowded room even more 18 so. The harm which has been caused is irreparable. Families have lost a son, a father and 19 grandfather. The defendants’ own families have been harmed by this wrong which has 20 occurred. It can be described as no less than a tragedy, but one which could have been 21 prevented had the defendants observed the rule of law. 22 23

¶ [64] In sentencing the Court has to seek to balance the aims of sentencing. Punishment and 24 deterrence must have primacy but there must also be a rehabilitative element to ensure 25 that these defendants do not continue to pose a risk to society. 26 27

¶ [65] The Court is mindful of their young age and developmental immaturity as urged by 28 Counsel and bears this in mind throughout the sentencing process. 29 30 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 17 of 26

¶ [66] In respect of the defendant Jackson, for the offence of Manslaughter the starting point is 1 12 years. His previous offending for a violent offence for which it is said that he was still 2 on license is a significant aggravating factor. Even allowing for his youth and 3 developmental issues it is deeply unfortunate that he did not thereafter, having been 4 convicted for this offence, seek to avoid bad company and remain out of trouble. The 5 SIR seems to suggest the very opposite, that extortion of money from numbers shops was 6 his weekly routine. 7 8

¶ [67] The previous offending serves to increase his sentence to 15 years imprisonment. 9 10

¶ [68] The Court considers that some aggravating factors are present. It is accepted that the use 11 of a weapon as an aggravating factor would likely amount to double counting. This is not 12 treated as an aggravating factor. 13 14

¶ [69] The offence was committed in a public place. This was a small, crowded room in which 15 there were other customers and the operator who all must have been understandably 16 terrified to witness what had taken place. The sentence is increased by reason of this 17 factor by 6 months. 18 19

¶ [70] The offence was committed in the evening following unlawful entry into the premises. 20 The fact that it was under cover of dark may well have added to the fear in the witnesses, 21 but the Court accepts the submission of the defence that this should not be treated as a 22 major aggravating factor and does not do so. 23 24

¶ [71] There was a clear attempt to conceal and dispose of evidence by wiping down the 25 getaway vehicle. An additional 3 months is added to the sentence for this factor. 26 27

¶ [72] Death did occur in the context of an offence which was planned or premeditated. Defence 28 Counsel’s submissions are considered on this, and it is accepted that in this circumstance 29 there may well also be the possibility of double counting. The gravamen of the offending 30 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 18 of 26 is the carrying of the loaded weapon to commit the offence of robbery. This has already 1 placed the offending into the category of High Culpability. 2 3

¶ [73] Given the aggravating factors which have been taken into account, the total sentence at 4 this stage for the defendant Jackson is 15 years and 9 months. 5 6

¶ [74] In mitigation account is taken of everything said and written in the defendant’s favour 7 including in the very detailed SIR. His age and developmental immaturity, his personal 8 circumstances to include depression and possible mental health issues, lack of emotional 9 support and his remorse, including any offer of assistance given to the authorities. While 10 it is accepted that the prosecution cannot be faulted for refusing his offer of a plea of 11 Manslaughter given the basis which he put forward, the Court does take his offer to plea 12 into account in so far as it indicates some willingness to accept responsibility for his 13 actions. All the mitigating circumstances serve to reduce his sentence by 4 years to one 14 of 11 years and 9 months. 15 16

¶ [75] In respect of the firearm offence, Count Two of the Indictment, the Court is mindful of 17 the general principles on sentencing of firearm matters. In the case of R v Avis5, the 18 English Court of Appeal stated that the appropriate level of sentence for a firearm offence 19 will depend on all the facts and circumstances relevant to the offence and the offender. 20 It will usually be appropriate for the sentencing court to ask itself a series of questions: 21 22 i) “What sort of weapon is involved? 23 24 Genuine firearms are more dangerous than imitation firearms. Loaded 25 firearms are more dangerous than unloaded firearms. Unloaded 26 firearms for which ammunition is available are more dangerous than 27 firearms for which no ammunition is available. Possession of a firearm 28 which has no lawful use such as a sawn off shot gun will be viewed even 29 5 [1998] 1 Cr. App. R. 420 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 19 of 26 more seriously than possession of a firearm which is capable of lawful 1 use. 2 3 ii) What if any use has been made of the firearm? 4 5 iii) With what intention, if any, did the defendant possess or use the firearm? 6 7 iv) What is the defendant’s record? 8 9 The seriousness of any firearm offence is increased if the offender has an established 10 record of committing firearm offences or crimes of violence.” 11 12

¶ [76] In applying the discussed principles to the instant case, this was a genuine firearm, a 13 lethal barreled weapon which was loaded. The firearm was used to cause the death of the 14 deceased. The intention was to commit a robbery. The defendant Jackson has a previous 15 conviction for violence. The defendant Williams-Soto is a person of effective good 16 character. 17 18

¶ [77] With respect to the firearm offence on the first Indictment, the Court has considered the 19 test set out in R v Zakir Rehman and Wood6 and is of the view that there are no 20 circumstances relating to the offence or the offender which would justify a departure 21 from the mandatory minimum penalty. Thus, in respect of the defendant Jackson the 22 sentence imposed is the mandatory minimum of 10 years imprisonment. 23 24

¶ [78] The two offences arise out of the same set of circumstances and therefore it is appropriate 25 that the sentences for the two offences run concurrently. 26 27

¶ [79] In respect of the defendant Williams-Soto for the offence of Manslaughter, from the 28 starting point of 12 years, 9 months is added by reason of the aggravating factors 29 (commission of the offence in a public place and disposal of evidence) for the reasons set 30 out above. 31 6 2006 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 77 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 20 of 26

¶ [80] In mitigation account is taken of everything said and written in his favour. The fact of his 1 effective good character, his young age and immaturity, his remorse, personal 2 circumstances, the lesser role played by him, all serve to reduce his sentence to one of 10 3 years. 4 5

¶ [81] There are no exceptional circumstances in his case applying the principles discussed 6 above which would serve to reduce the mandatory minimum sentence for the offence of 7 Possession of Firearm. The sentence of 10 years imprisonment is therefore imposed. The 8 sentence is to run concurrently to the sentence for the offence of Manslaughter. Time 9 served is to be taken into account. 10 11 INDICTMENT 43/22 - JUSTIN KYLE JACKSON 12 THE FACTS 13 14

¶ [82] The prosecution has provided a summary of the facts in respect of Indictment 43/22 R v 15 Justin Jackson which is set out below. 16 17

¶ [83] At about 5:45 pm on Friday the 29th April, 2022, the police received information that the 18 defendant, who was wanted by the police, was in a white Toyota Yaris in the district of 19 West Bay. 20 21

¶ [84] Several officers responded to the report and identified the vehicle in the vicinity of the 22 Yacht Club roundabout. They signaled the vehicle to stop using lights and sirens. The 23 driver complied but when instructed to exit the vehicle, he sped off continuing towards 24 George Town. The driver eventually lost control of the vehicle and collided into a median. 25 26

¶ [85] Immediately prior to the collision, PC Bin Malcolm observed what appeared to be a pistol 27 being waved around in the vicinity of the steering wheel. 28 29 30 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 21 of 26

¶ [86] The officers drove toward the vehicle and observed two males inside. One of the men 1 was Justin Jackson. Both men fled the vehicle. They were instructed to stop but did not 2 comply. The vehicle was secured, and the officers gave a short chase and were able to 3 detain the other male. Justin Jackson escaped. 4 5

¶ [87] The vehicle was searched, and a firearm was found in the footwell. The firearm was 6 subsequently examined and tested by APS Anthony Stewart. He determined that the 7 firearm was a fully functional loaded Taurus 9 mm semiautomatic pistol. There was one 8 round of ammunition in the chamber and eight in the magazine. All of the ammunition 9 was found to be viable. 10 11

¶ [88] Justin Jackson eventually surrendered himself to the police on the 4th May 2022. He was 12 arrested and cautioned. The investigating officers sought to interview him under caution 13 on the 6th May 2022. He declined to be interviewed and instead provided a prepared 14 statement through his attorney. 15 16

¶ [89] In that statement, he admitted that he was driving the white car at the material time. He 17 stated that he had the gun because he was afraid that he would be killed. He left the gun 18 in the car when he ran from the police. He claimed sole responsibility for it. In paragraph 19 3 he said: - 20 21 “I drove off. I know I had a gun on me. I had that gun because I was terrified that 22 the person who had killed Caine Thomas was going to kill me. I have provided my 23 attorney with instructions of what happened and in due course I will provide that 24 information to the police.” 25 26 ADDENDUM SIR - DEFENDANT JUSTIN JACKSON 27 28

¶ [90] There is an addendum SIR dated 5th April 2024 in respect of the defendant Justin Jackson 29 which has been provided by the DCR. Under the heading Attitude to the Offence, the 30 defendant is recorded as reporting to the Probation Officer that he feared for his life 31 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 22 of 26 following the murder of Caine Thomas the previous day and that he obtained the gun. He 1 said that on reflection he could have or should have reported the threats to the police and 2 handed himself in, in respect of the Manslaughter and the breach of Conditional Release 3 License. The Officer states that the circumstances of the offence further demonstrates the 4 defendants’ pro-criminal thinking and general disregard for the law as per the assessment 5 in the initial SIR. 6 7 THE SUBMISSIONS 8 9

¶ [91] Counsel for the prosecution submits in respect of this offending that the defendant was 10 in possession of another loaded firearm four days after being involved in an attempted 11 robbery in which the deceased had been killed. Counsel submitted that it is apparent from 12 the sequence of events that the defendant was in possession of two separate firearms in 13 the space of four days and that these factors aggravate the defendant’s offending. 14 15

¶ [92] Counsels refers the Court to the United Kingdom Sentencing Council Guidelines and 16 the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines with respect to concurrent and consecutive 17 sentences. 18 19

¶ [93] Counsel submits that the latter offending did not arise out of a single transaction and thus 20 that a consecutive sentence would be appropriate in this case. The United Kingdom 21 Guidelines provides examples where consecutive sentences would ordinarily be 22 appropriate. These include the following: - 23 24 (a) “Offences arise out of unrelated facts or incidents. 25 26 (b) Offences committed in the same incident are distinct, involving an aggravating 27 element that requires separate recognition. 28 29 (c) Offences are of the same or similar kind but the overall criminality will not 30 sufficiently be reflected by concurrent sentences. 31 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 23 of 26 1 (d) One or more offence(s) qualifies for a statutory minimum sentence and 2 concurrent sentences would improperly undermine that minimum.” 3 4

¶ [94] Defence Counsel submits that the unique facts of this case should compel the Court to 5 the view that sentences on the two Indictments should be concurrent. Counsel disagrees 6 with the submission of the prosecution that there is potential for the undermining of the 7 statutory minimum should a concurrent sentence be imposed. 8 9

¶ [95] Counsel points to the reference to Caine Thomas as a feature in both cases and states that 10 the defendant’s possession of a firearm four days later was because of his fear of being 11 killed by the same person who killed Caine Thomas. The defendant says that there was 12 some pressure from Mr. Thomas to commit the robbery. Counsel submits that the very 13 short gap between the Manslaughter and the Possession of Firearm underlines that the 14 offences are related. Counsel reminds the Court of the principle of totality and submits 15 that a global sentence which is disproportionate should move the Court to find that there 16 are exceptional circumstances such that the mandatory minimum of seven years should 17 not apply. 18 19

¶ [96] In mitigation Counsel submits that there are six mitigating factors: - 20 21 i) The firearm in question was not brandished at any time by Justin Jackson. 22 ii) Justin Jackson made no attempt to take the firearm with him when he exited the 23 vehicle and made off. 24 iii) Justin Jackson voluntarily surrendered himself to custody. 25 iv) Justin Jackson made admissions to the offences in a prepared statement 26 provided to the police. 27 v) The Court will be aware from other proceedings of the involvement of Caine 28 Thomas in the days preceding this offence. 29 vi) Pleas of guilty were entered at the first reasonable opportunity. 30 31 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 24 of 26

¶ [97] Counsel also refers to the defendant’s immaturity by reason of the factors mentioned 1 above. 2 3 THE SENTENCE 4 5

¶ [98] Regard is had to the principles set out in the case of R v Avis as outlined above and the 6 questions which are to be asked in similar vein. 7 8

¶ [99] The statutory minimum of 7 years applies unless there are circumstances of the offence 9 or the offender which are exceptional in nature. All the circumstances raised in mitigation 10 on behalf of the defendant Jackson have been considered including his offer of assistance. 11 The age, immaturity and personal issues of the defendant are also considered. The first 12 part of the test as set out in the cases of Rehman and Wood and R. v. Michael Hugh 13 Powell7, cited by prosecuting Counsel is applied. 14 15

¶ [100] While the defendant mentions in his prepared statement providing information, there is 16 nothing concrete before this Court or which has subsequently been brought to the 17 attention of the Court to refer to that assistance such as to give rise to a finding of an 18 exceptional nature. 19 20

¶ [101] The personal circumstances of the defendant as they are, do not appear to consist of 21 exceptional circumstances. There is nothing about the offence itself which would 22 constitute exceptional circumstances. 23 24

¶ [102] The Court turns to consider the second issue which is how the sentences should run and 25 the second aspect of the test set out in Rehman and Wood. It is this which gives the Court 26 pause. 27 28

¶ [103] Defence Counsel argues that these offences arise out of the same or similar facts. The 29 prosecution has indicated that the gun used in the Manslaughter was a 40 caliber Smith 30 7 CICA Criminal Appeal No, 009/2013, Ind. 107/2012, Unreported Judgment dated 2nd September 2013 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 25 of 26 and Wesson. The evidence at trial was that the firearm was handed over by Mr. Thomas 1 and returned to him after the incident. 2 3

¶ [104] The firearm recovered from the car is a 9mm semi-automatic pistol and 9 rounds of 4 ammunition. This was an entirely separate firearm which the defendant on his own 5 account chose to possess. It was loaded. 6 7

¶ [105] In the Court’s view, the incidents are in the main unrelated, and do not amount to a single 8 incident. Even if there was some connection, in the Court’s view the overall criminality 9 would not be sufficiently reflected by entirely concurrent sentences. 10 11

¶ [106] What is clear is that this defendant was so connected to guns that he had ready access to 12 a second firearm within four days of the first. 13 14

¶ [107] It is when considering the principle of totality that there is concern. It is considered that 15 for the full sentence of 7 years to run consecutively to the sentence on the Manslaughter, 16 this would result in a disproportionate and arbitrary sentence. 17 18

¶ [108] Consequently, one third of the sentence of 7 years which would be 28 months will run 19 consecutively to the sentences on Indictment 34 and 93/22 for the offences of 20 Manslaughter and Possession of an Unlicensed Firearm. 21 22

¶ [109] For the offence of Possession of Ammunition, Count Two, which clearly arises out of the 23 same set of circumstances the sentence is 2 years imprisonment concurrent to Count One. 24 25

¶ [110] In summary on Indictment 34 and 93/22, for Count One, the offence of Manslaughter, 26 the sentence is 11 years and 9 months. On Count Two, Possession of Firearm, the 27 sentence is 10 years imprisonment concurrent. On Indictment 43/22, Count One, 28 Possession of Firearm, the sentence is 7 years imprisonment, 28 months of this is to run 29 consecutive to the sentence on Count One of Indictment 34 and 93 /22. On Count Two, 30 the sentence is 2 years imprisonment concurrent to the sentence on Count One. 31 32 240419 R v Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Williams-Soto: Ind. 34 + 93 of 2022 and 43 of 2022. Coram Richards J, KC – Sentence Judgment Page 26 of 26

¶ [111] Time served is to be taken into account. 1 2 Dated this the 19th April 2024 3 4 The Hon. Justice Cheryll Richards KC 5 Judge of the Grand Court 6