R v Williams (Mikael Antonio) - Sentence Judgment

¶ _____________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Williams (Mikael Antonio) Ind. 54 & 5/2022. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 9th December 2022 Page 1 of 7 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 1 CRIMINAL DIVISION 2 3 INDICTMENTS No: 54 & 55/2022 4 5 6 REX 7 8 v 9 10 MIKAEL ANTONIO1 WILLIAMS 11 12 Appearances: Mr Scott Wainwright for the Crown 13 14 Mr. Keith Myers for the Defendant 15 Before: Justice Frank Williams (Actg.) 16 Heard: 25th November 2022 17 18 19 20 HEADNOTE 21 Criminal Law – Possession of an unlicenced firearm and ammunition – 22 Sections 15 (1) and 15(5) of the Firearms Act – Sentence following guilty 23 pleas. 24 25 26 27 SENTENCE JUDGMENT 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 1 This name on the indictment is spelt “Anthonio.” _____________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Williams (Mikael Antonio) Ind. 54 & 5/2022. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 9th December 2022 Page 2 of 7 BACKGROUND 1

¶ [1] Before me for sentencing is the defendant, Mikael Antonio Williams. He falls to be 2 sentenced, having pleaded guilty on the 5th August 2022 to an indictment containing 3 two counts. The first count charged the defendant with the offence of possession of 4 an unlicensed firearm contrary to s.15(1) and (5) of the Firearms Act (2008 5 Revision). The second count charged him with possession of an unlicensed firearm 6 (ammunition), also contrary to s.15(1) and (5) of the Firearms Act. 7 THE FACTS 8

¶ [2] The firearm and ammunition in question are a 9mm pistol and nineteen (19), 9mm 9 rounds. 10 11

¶ [3] The firearm and ammunition were seized on the 15th day of July 2022 when the 12 police executed a search warrant at premises occupied by the defendant, his partner 13 and her daughter. The defendant told them that he had a firearm in the drawer of a 14 bedside table. When the police checked it, they found the pistol loaded with 14 15 rounds of ammunition. They also found another five rounds of ammunition in a clear 16 plastic bag in the said drawer. The defendant told the police that he had been 17 summoned from his home by telephone by a gang member that very morning, who 18 ordered him, whilst being threatened at gunpoint by another gang member, to keep 19 the firearm and ammunition and they would collect them from him later that day. 20 21

¶ [4] For the Crown, Mr Wainwright informed the Court that nothing adverse is known 22 about the defendant in this jurisdiction. The only potential aggravating factor in the 23 case might arise from the sheer number of rounds of ammunition found in the 24 defendant’s possession, Mr. Wainwright noted. 25 26 _____________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Williams (Mikael Antonio) Ind. 54 & 5/2022. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 9th December 2022 Page 3 of 7

¶ [5] For the defendant, Mr Myers encouraged the Court to impose the minimum sentence 1 mandated by law in relation to the firearm, and to impose a nominal sentence for the 2 ammunition. Viewing the number of rounds of ammunition as an aggravating factor 3 might result in “double counting” of the same factor when he is sentenced for the 4 ammunition, Mr. Myers warned. 5 THE LAW 6 7

¶ [6] Section 15(1) of the Firearms Act makes it an offence for someone to be in 8 possession of a firearm except under and in accordance with a firearms user’s 9 (restricted) licence. It is common ground that the defendant is not the holder of a 10 firearms licence: hence the plea of guilty. Section 15(5) of the Act states that being 11 in possession of an unlicensed firearm is an offence and states the penalty for doing 12 so. 13 14

¶ [7] Section 39 of the Firearms Act is also relevant. It reads as follows: 15 16 "Minimum sentences for certain offences 17

¶ [39] (1) This section applies where- 18 (a) an individual is convicted following a trial or a plea of 19 guilty, by a court of summary jurisdiction or the Grand 20 Court, of an offence under section 3(3), 15(5) or 18(6); 21 (b) the offence was committed on or after 15th November, 22 2005; and 23 (c) the offence is in respect of a machine gun, sub-machine 24 gun, rifle, shot gun, pistol, or any lethal barrelled 25 weapon from which any shot, bullet or other missile can 26 be discharged. 27 (2) Notwithstanding sections 6(2) and 8 of the Criminal Procedure 28 Code (2006 Revision), the court of summary jurisdiction or the 29 Grand Court before which the individual pleads guilty or is 30 convicted, shall- 31 (a) in a case where the individual pleads guilty, impose a 32 sentence of imprisonment for a term of at least seven 33 years (with or without a fine); or 34 _____________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Williams (Mikael Antonio) Ind. 54 & 5/2022. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 9th December 2022 Page 4 of 7 (b) in any other case, impose a sentence of imprisonment 1 for a term of at least ten years (with or without a fine), 2 unless the relevant court is of the opinion that there are 3 exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or to the 4 offender which justify its not doing so; and such exceptional 5 circumstances shall be stated by the relevant court. 6 (3) …” 7 8

¶ [8] In this case, the application of s.39 of the Act (which imposes mandatory minimum 9 sentences) is triggered by the following: 10 i. The defendant having pleaded guilty in this court in respect of an offence 11 concerning s.15(5) of the Act. 12 ii. The defendant having committed the offence after the 15th November 13

¶ [2005] 14 iii. The firearm involved in the offence being a pistol. 15 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM SENTENCES 16

¶ [9] By virtue of s.39 (2)(a) of the Act, the mandatory minimum sentence possible in this 17 case is a period of seven years’ imprisonment. The maximum sentence is reflected 18 in s.15(5) of the Act, which states: 19 20 “(5) Whoever contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and, subject to 21 section 39, is liable on conviction to a fine of one hundred thousand 22 dollars and to imprisonment for twenty years.” 23 24 THE AIMS OF SENTENCING 25

¶ [10] The aims or objects of sentencing are well known. In the Cayman Islands 26 Sentencing Guidelines, 2015, the aims are stated thus at page 8: 27 28 29 _____________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Williams (Mikael Antonio) Ind. 54 & 5/2022. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 9th December 2022 Page 5 of 7 “The following are the principal aims of sentencing: 1 (a) Incapacitation 2 (b) Deterrence 3 (c) Punishment 4 (d) Rehabilitation, 5 (e) Restitution” 6 7

¶ [11] Given the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that it is 8 primarily the aims of deterrence and rehabilitation that ought to be given emphasis 9 in this case. 10 11 THE APPROPRIATE SENTENCES 12 13

¶ [12] In considering the appropriate sentences, I first note that it is acknowledged by 14 Counsel that there are no exceptional circumstances in this case which warrant a 15 sentence below the mandatory minimum. 16 17

¶ [13] Therefore, the only question that arises is whether it is the minimum sentence that 18 should be imposed, or whether some other higher sentence is justified. 19 20

¶ [14] The defendant is 27 years old, having been born on the 2nd of November 1995. He 21 has no previous convictions that the court has been made aware of and no other 22 adverse matter about him has been brought to the court’s attention. There is therefore 23 no aggravating factor to increase the mandatory minimum sentence of seven years’ 24 imprisonment or to increase any other sentence or range that might be used as a 25 starting point. Neither is there any negative consideration to suggest a sentence near 26 to the maximum sentence of 20 years as set out in s.15(5) of the Act. 27 28 _____________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Williams (Mikael Antonio) Ind. 54 & 5/2022. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 9th December 2022 Page 6 of 7

¶ [15] In the case of Terry v R2, the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal (CICA) (per Chadwick 1 P) considered that a range of between 13 and 14 years would have been an 2 appropriate starting point for possession of an unlicensed firearm after a conviction 3 by way of trial and given the facts of that case. In the instant case, there was no 4 conviction after trial. Rather, there was a guilty plea, thus saving the court 5 considerable time and expense which a trial would have necessitated. 6 7

¶ [16] A plea of guilt is also taken as an indication of remorse – an important consideration 8 in sentencing a defendant. 9 10

¶ [17] In terms of a suitable range for beginning a consideration of the appropriate sentence 11 in this case, a range of, say, 9 to 12 years would seem appropriate, with a starting 12 point of 11 years. 13 14

¶ [18] Two-and-a-half years will be deducted from this figure of 11 years, on account of 15 the defendant’s guilty plea. In addition, one year will be deducted on account of his 16 co-operating with the search and informing the police where the weapon was to have 17 been found. That results in seven years and six months. The sentence of this Court 18 for the firearm offence will therefore be seven years and six months. 19 20

¶ [19] In relation to the ammunition, although the number of rounds does raise some 21 concern (each of the 19 rounds potentially representing the taking of a life or the 22 infliction of a serious injury), I am not minded to impose a relatively heavy sentence 23 on this count as, in my view, the sentence on count one, having regard to the totality 24 principle, should suffice to deter the defendant from re-offending as well as to deter 25 like-minded persons from committing the same, or a similar, offence. 26 27 2 [2012] (2) CILR 119 _____________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Williams (Mikael Antonio) Ind. 54 & 5/2022. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 9th December 2022 Page 7 of 7

¶ [20] The sentence in respect of the firearm (ammunition) offence that the court considers 1 fair and appropriate in the circumstances of this case is two years’ imprisonment. 2 3

¶ [21] The sentences are to run concurrently and, in keeping with the now-established 4 position set out, for example, in cases such as Romeo DaCosta Hall v R3, the 5 defendant is to be credited with time spent on pre-sentence remand. 6 7

¶ [22] In the result, the court orders as follows: 8 (i) Count 1 – Seven (7) years and six (6) months’ imprisonment. 9 (ii) Count 2 – Two (2) years’ imprisonment. 10 (iii) The sentences are to run concurrently. 11 (iv) The defendant is to be credited with time spent on pre-sentence remand. 12 13 Dated this the 9th December 2022 14 15 16 Justice Frank Williams (Actg.) 17 Acting Judge of the Grand Court 18 19 3 [2011] CCJ 6 (AJ)