R v Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy) - Sentence Judgment

¶ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 1 of 33 THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 1 CRIMINAL SIDE 2 INDICTMENT NO. 78 of 2020 3 4 THE QUEEN 5 V. 6 DERRIN KENNEDY EBANKS 7 8 9 Appearances: Mr. Scott Wainwright for the Prosecution 10 Mrs. Lee Halliday-Davis of Brady Attorneys 11 for the Defence 12 Before: Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. 13 14 Sentence Hearing: 4th November 2021 15 Further Written Submissions: 9th and 11th November 2021 16 Sentence Judgment: 2nd December 2021 17 18 19 20 HEADNOTE 21 Criminal Law – Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm, Wounding, 22 Damaging Property, Wrongful Confinement, Theft – Sentencing following trial – 23 Principles on Sentencing. 24 25 SENTENCE JUDGMENT 26 27 28 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 2 of 33

¶ [1] The Defendant is before the Court for sentencing in respect of nine offences involving 1 four victims. Eight of the offences are on an Indictment before the Grand Court. One 2 offence is a Summary Court charge. All the offences were committed on the afternoon 3 and evening of Sunday the 6th day of September 2020 in the district of West Bay. 4 5

¶ [2] The Defendant was convicted by a jury after trial of eight offences on a 13-count 6 Indictment in the Grand Court. These are offences committed against three women, 7 Lucia Mannarino, Shallyn McDonald and Kimberly Woomer. The jury returned verdicts 8 of not guilty in respect of four offences. No verdict was returned on count 4 of the 9 Indictment it being an alternative to count 3. 10 11

¶ [3] The Defendant pleaded guilty in the Summary Court to the offence of Assault 12 Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm against Eric Carmona Jimenez. As the offences are all 13 part of a series, Counsel on both sides have invited this Court to also pass sentence in 14 respect of the offence to which the Defendant pleaded guilty in the Summary Court. 15 16

¶ [4] In respect of the jurisdiction of the Grand Court to also pass sentence in respect of the 17 Summary Court offence, Counsel have referred the Court to the judgment of Dame 18 Dobbs J. (Ag) in the case of R v Perez- Ruiz and others1. Dame Dobbs. J reviewed s.11 19 of the Grand Court Act (2015 Revision) and s.19 of the Courts Act2 1981 of the United 20 Kingdom. The learned Judge concluded that the Grand Court has the power to exercise 21 the powers of a Magistrate of the Summary Court. The rationale is that it would be in 22 the interests of justice in respect of cases which relate to the same subject matter and 23 1 Grand Court Unreported 29th March 2019 2 Originally named the Supreme Court Act 1981 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 3 of 33 would reduce delay, save public funds and also ensure that there is consistency of 1 sentence. The Court stated: 2 “The relevant provisions in the UK can be found in s.19 of the Courts Act 3 1981 which sets out the general jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court, 4 and s.66 the Courts Act 2003 which gives a judge of the high court the 5 powers of a justice of the peace who is a district judge (magistrates’ 6 court/Cayman Summary Court) in relation to criminal causes and matters. 7 8 Section 11 of the Grand Court Law (2015) Revision states that the Grand 9 court shall be a superior court of record and in addition to any jurisdiction 10 exercised by the court or conferred by that and any other law in force in the 11 Cayman Islands it has the like jurisdiction which is vested in or capable of 12 being exercised in England by the High Court as constituted by the Senior 13 Courts Act 1981 and any other Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom 14 amending or replacing that Act.” 15 16

¶ [5] In the instant case, both Counsel are in agreement with this interpretation and have urged 17 a conjoined approach to sentencing. 18 19 THE OFFENCES 20 21

¶ [6] The Defendant falls to be sentenced in relation to the following offences. In relation to 22 victim Lucia Mannarino (LM): 23 24 Count 2 – ASSAULT CAUSING ACTUAL BODILY HARM contrary to s.216 of the 25 Penal Code (2019 Revision). The particulars are that he, on the day in question, at 26 Town Hall Road, West Bay, Grand Cayman assaulted her thereby causing her actual 27 bodily harm. 28 29 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 4 of 33 Count 3 - WOUNDING contrary to s.204 of the Penal Code (2019 Revision). The 1 particulars are that he, on the said day, and at the said place, unlawfully and 2 maliciously wounded Lucia Mannarino. 3 4 Count 5 – DAMAGE TO PROPERTY contrary to s.267(1)(a) of the Penal Code (2019 5 Revision). The particulars are that he, on the said day and at the said place, 6 damaged an Apple iPhone, the property of Lucia Mannarino, intending to 7 damage such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be 8 damaged. 9 10

¶ [7] In relation to Shallyn McDonald (SM): 11 12 Count 7 - ASSAULT CAUSING ACTUAL BODILY HARM contrary to s. 216 of the 13 Penal Code (2019 Revision). The particulars are that he, on the day in question at 14 Town Hall Road, West Bay Grand Cayman assaulted her thereby causing her actual 15 bodily harm. 16 17 Count 8 - THEFT, contrary to s.241(a) of the Penal Code (2019 Revision). The 18 particulars are that he, on the said date and at the said place stole a Samsung 19 Galaxy 58 mobile phone, the property of Shallyn McDonald. 20 21

¶ [8] In relation to Kimberly Woomer (KW): 22 23 Count 10 - ASSAULT CAUSING ACTUAL BODILY HARM, contrary to s.216 of the 24 Penal Code (2019 Revision). The particulars are that he, on the said day at 25 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 5 of 33 Genevieve Bodden Drive, West Bay, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, assaulted 1 Kimberly Woomer by grabbing her breast and thereby causing her actual bodily 2 harm. 3 4 Count 12 - WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT, contrary to s.222 of the Penal Code (2019 5 Revision). The particulars are that he, on the said date and at the said place, 6 Genevieve Bodden Drive, West Bay, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, 7 wrongfully confined Kimberly Woomer. 8 9 Count 13 - DAMAGING PROPERTY, contrary to s.267(1)(a) of the Penal Code (2019 10 Revision). The particulars are that he on the said date and at the said place, 11 Genevieve Bodden Drive damaged a pair of spectacles, the property of Kimberly 12 Woomer, intending to damage such property or being reckless as to whether such 13 property would be damaged. 14 15

¶ [9] In relation to Eric Carmona Jimenez: 16 17 C #02196/2020 - ASSAULT CAUSING ACTUAL BODILY HARM, contrary to 18 s.216 of the Penal Code (2019 Revision). The particulars are that he on the said 19 date at Coral Beach Restaurant, Grand Cayman unlawfully assaulted Eric 20 Carmona Jimenez thereby causing him actual bodily harm. 21 22 23 24 25 26 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 6 of 33 THE FACTS 1 2

¶ [10] The brief facts are these. The victim Lucia Mannarino had been in a relationship with 3 the Defendant in the past. They have a two-year-old son together. At the material time, 4 they resided at separate locations in the district of West Bay. 5 6

¶ [11] On Sunday 6th September 2020, Ms. Mannarino and her friend Shallyn McDonald had 7 been out at brunch at Coral Beach Club. When they were leaving the Club, in the late 8 afternoon the Defendant was seen in the parking lot. The women greeted him. From 9 his conversation and manner he appeared to them to have been drinking. Both ladies 10 went to the home of Ms. Mannarino. This is a two-story apartment. While Ms. 11 Mannarino was in a bedroom upstairs putting the two-year-old child to bed, she sent 12 a message to the Defendant inviting him to visit his son. Sometime later, about after 13 9pm while she was downstairs in the living room area with Ms. McDonald, the 14 Defendant arrived at the apartment. He had a container of food in his hand. He took 15 utensils from the kitchen area which adjoins the living room, sat down and began to 16 eat. After he sat down Ms. Mannarino asked how his day was and he responded saying 17 that he had ‘F’ed some girl in the parking lot and beat the S out of some guy, it was a 18 good day’. 19 20

¶ [12] Ms. Mannarino became upset because of his response and asked him to leave. Ms. 21 McDonald also asked him to leave and told him he was drunk. The Defendant became 22 angry and threw the plate of food at Ms. Mannarino. He picked her up and slammed 23 her against the glass coffee table. The coffee table shattered and Ms. Mannarino 24 received a wound to the back of her right arm. When she was down on the ground, 25 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 7 of 33 the Defendant stomped on her head with his foot. He was wearing dress shoes. He 1 took up her phone and smashed it on the tiled floor causing damage to it. 2 3

¶ [13] Shallyn McDonald tried to intervene to stop him from hitting Ms. Mannarino. The 4 Defendant kicked and punched her multiple times to her head causing fractures to her 5 nose. The punches also aggravated a previous injury which she had to her head. When 6 Ms. McDonald attempted to call 911 from her phone, the Defendant took it from her 7 and placed it in his pocket. Later he left the apartment with it. Despite returning to the 8 apartment a second time, he discarded the phone in the bushes in an area of West Bay. 9 Following his arrest he took the police to that area. They retrieved the phone which 10 was not then in working condition. 11 12

¶ [14] With respect to the victim Kimberley Woomer, the Prosecution’s case at trial was that 13 following the Defendant’s departure from the home of Ms. Mannarino he went to 14 another part of West Bay to the home of Kimberley Woomer. He had been in a 15 relationship with Ms. Woomer for a period of time. He pushed his way into her 16 apartment when she opened the door, kicked her dog who ran to greet him and threw 17 Ms. Woomer against the wall of the apartment. When she tried to get him off her he 18 pushed her to the ground. He grabbed her spectacles and threw them across the room 19 so that they shattered. She is not able to see without them. He threw her on the ground, 20 punched her on the head and started strangling her. When she tried to get away, he 21 pulled her by the ear and threw her on the bed where she was forced to remain. He 22 grabbed her by her breast and her nipple causing bruising to that area. Through 23 physical confinement and fear, she remained where he placed her until the early hours 24 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 8 of 33 of the morning. She was unable to see and was unable to call for help as he also took 1 her phone. 2 3

¶ [15] With respect to the victim, Eric Carmona, the offence to which the Defendant pleaded 4 guilty, the Prosecution’s case is that Mr. Carmona, the Defendant and other friends 5 had been socializing as a group at Coral Beach Restaurant at about 6pm on the day in 6 question. There was an exchange of conversation. The Defendant grabbed the victim 7 by his neck, was strangling him and punched him to the left side of his face. Persons 8 intervened and stopped the assault. In the course of this trial, the Defendant said that 9 Mr. Carmona had said something about his sister. Mr. Carmona sustained bruising to 10 his neck and face. 11 12 VICTIM IMPACT REPORTS 13 14

¶ [16] The DCR has provided a Victim Impact Report (“VIR”) dated 21st October 2021 in 15 respect of Lucia Mannarino. Under Assessment/Evaluation it states: 16 17 “Based on all of the information garnered, it would appear that Ms. Mannarino has 18 been grievously impacted physically, financially, emotionally and psychologically 19 as a result of Mr. Ebanks’ actions. Ms. Mannarino continues to experience 20 significant harm despite the offences occurring over one year ago, including but not 21 limited to, her Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), constant feelings of stress, 22 and nightmares. Ms. Mannarino was also put at a significant financial loss as a 23 result of her injuries, loss of work hours and damage to her cell phone. It is of 24 further concern that Ms. Mannarino is intensely fearful for her safety and that of her 25 young son, and hence expressed her desire for Mr. Ebanks to be incarcerated. Ms. 26 Mannarino spoke to her re-victimization during the trial as she felt that Mr. Ebanks 27 and his family members intimidated her. In order to overcome the overwhelming 28 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 9 of 33 effects of the offences, Ms. Mannarino and her son may require long-term 1 intervention and support.” 2 3

¶ [17] Attached to the report is a 14-page statement from Ms. Mannarino. It details the 4 impact of the offence upon her and resulting emotional and psychological trauma. She 5 has also suffered economic loss to include the cost for replacing her phone, medical 6 treatment and loss of work hours. The total is $7,200.00. She states in part: 7 “I am scared of Derrin. I am terrified that he will come back to hurt me again. 8 I do not believe that this will be the last time that Derrin hurts me as this is a 9 purposeful pattern of behavior and he now has been convicted of a crime. I am 10 scared that while Derrin is out on bail and waiting for sentencing he (sic) hurt 11 me. If I see Derrin in public, I immediately leave. I bought a new car and 12 moved homes so that Derrin doesn’t know what I drive or where I live. I am 13 terrified that Derrin will physically hurt “M.”. I am scared of Derrin’s family 14 as his dad often showed up unannounced and he had his brother (and other 15 family members) intimidate me both in and outside the Court room during trial. 16 17 During this assault I received numerous injuries. I had bruises, cuts and 18 swelling all over my head. The entire left side of my face, jaw and head was 19 extremely swollen and bruised. I had a black eye and a foot print bruise on the 20 temple area of my face. The bruising and swelling lasted for 3 weeks. I had 21 deep cuts in my ears. The frenulum in my upper lip had completely ripped. My 22 jaw was in extreme pain and felt like it was broken. I was unable to speak, 23 smile, close my mouth or chew food properly for weeks. I had painful areas 24 and bruises all over my body. As a result of the head and facial injuries from 25 the assault, I developed headaches behind my eyes, had blurred vision and 26 issues with convergence. An optometrist prescribed eyeglasses in an attempt to 27 assist with these issues. I had injuries to my fingers on my right hand that were 28 so painful I was unable to use my dominant hand properly or over two months 29 and had issues at work resulting from being slammed into the coffee table and 30 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 10 of 33 now have permanent scars. I have lasting injuries to my neck, back and rotator 1 cuff. I was treated at the hospital and have had numerous various doctor 2 appointments afterwards. 3 4 My performance at work has been affected due to memory loss, issues with 5 concentration, immobility of my fingers, and the amount of time I had to take 6 off to recover, to seek medical attention and to attend legal proceedings. 7 8 The emotional and psychological trauma far outweighs the physical trauma of this 9 assault. It has had a devastating impact on my mental and emotional health. I suffer 10 from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), sleeping problems, nightmares, 11 depression, anxiety, shame and anger. I am always on edge and stressed out. I have 12 trouble concentrating and zone out quite often. I wake up to any little sound I hear 13 or any car doors closing. I sleep fully dressed as I am afraid that something will 14 happen to me in the night and I don’t want to be found undressed. …”. 15 16

¶ [18] Ms. McDonald has provided a victim impact statement dated 6th October 2021, 17 consisting of 5 pages. She states in part: 18 19 “At the time of the assault, I was still recovering from a concussion sustained 20 on 7 August 2020 which I sustained while wakeboarding along Seven Miles 21 Beach. I was almost fully recovered by the time of the assault on 6 September 22 2020 and was not experiencing any physical symptoms aside from the 23 occasional headache. I was almost completely back to my normal activity level. 24 During the assault on 6 September 2020 I suffered repeated head trauma from 25 the Defendant repeatedly punching me all over my head. For much of the attack 26 I was pinned on the ground by the Defendant and he would repeatedly punch 27 me in the head, causing the opposite side of my head to repeatedly hit the hard, 28 tile floor. I specifically recall my head bouncing off that tile floor with each 29 blow and thinking to myself that the Defendant was going to kill me. This 30 repeated head trauma resulted in a far more significant MTBI than my first 31 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 11 of 33 concussion and left me with significant physical deficits and symptoms for 1 many, many months. I still have not fully recovered and I am told by my 2 physician that I may continue to suffer these symptoms for the rest of my life. I 3 initially suffered with pain, headaches, blurry vision and difficulty with 4 memory, difficulty seeing, dizziness, neck pain, nausea, feeling woozy or in a 5 fog, difficulty concentrating, difficulty with memory, difficulty reading and with 6 general comprehension, fatigue, lethargy, and anxiousness. As this MTBI 7 occurred only one month after the first concussion, I was at significant risk of 8 suffering permanent brain damage should I sustain another head injury during 9 my lifetime. I am extremely lucky the Defendant did not turn me into a vegetable 10 that evening. Part of my recovery from the MTBI involved not being able to do 11 much of anything – I was advised I couldn’t watch TV, I couldn’t read a book, 12 I couldn’t have too much screen time (either on a work computer, my own 13 computer, or my phone, any screen), anything that would tax my cognitive 14 functioning at all was off-limits, etc. The advice from my doctors at that time 15 was to simply rest and/or sleep as much as possible – this would give me the 16 best possible chance of recovery from the MTBI. I was also advised by my 17 doctors that I was not allowed to take part in any activity that would raise my 18 heart rate even a little, as anything that raised my intracranial pressure even 19 slightly could potentially kill me. Exercise is primarily how I manage my own 20 personal stress generally and not being able to exercise at all after this 21 traumatic event caused me great distress and depression. I was under the 22 weekly or biweekly care of a head injury specialist … for the MTBI for several 23 months following the attack, in addition to my GP”. 24 25

¶ [19] In addition to significant lost wages of close to $7,000.00 there was also the cost of a 26 replacement phone and medical costs. 27 28 29 30 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 12 of 33

¶ [20] Ms. Woomer in her victim impact statement dated 21st October 2021 consisting of 4 1 pages, describes the traumatic impact of the attack on herself and her dog. She states: 2 3 “In the days following the abuse, I began to detach completely from my reality. 4 To this day, I have not returned to my normal self. Coping with what happened 5 has become unbearable. For the past year, I hear myself screaming, “somebody 6 help me” when I am driving down the road or trying to sleep at night. My voice 7 was hoarse end almost nonexistent for a week from the strangulation. My 8 breast remained bruised for weeks and my nose was swollen, but nothing hurt 9 more than the emotional and spiritual pain and my lack of ability to come to 10 terms with what had just happened. I took my dog to the vet and myself to the 11 doctor, and we were told we would be okay. This must have meant physically 12 because both of our mental states have suffered. My dog eventually returned to 13 a less anxious dog, but I never recovered. I have this constant feeling that I 14 cannot breathe and that I am gasping for air as if I am drowning. My doctor 15 prescribed me Clonazepam for panic attacks and PTSD episodes, but this did 16 not help with the painful tightness in my chest that has consumed me for over a 17 year. I have mourned myself multiple times with no hope of returning to who I 18 once was. Derrin has taken a piece of me that I fear will never come back. My 19 soul has died. I am consumed with fear and have hidden in my home for over a 20 year. My ability to hold conversations at my job with people about their health 21 has fallen flat, and I was so scared of men my boss and coworkers would have 22 to help them when they came into the store. My lack of safety pushed me to 23 leave the Island in fear that he would not be sentenced long enough to let the 24 women and men he has hurt live their lives freely. Unfortunately, the trauma, 25 hypervigilance and fear stuck with me even when I moved back to … Trauma 26 does not disappear just because your location changed. Escaping the pain from 27 trauma is nonexistent. It is always with you. In April 2021, I moved my dog off 28 Island in order to keep her safe. After a month, I spent the money to come back 29 to Cayman to testify in court. After quarantining for two weeks, I was told that 30 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 13 of 33 they were postponing the trial. At this point, I sold my car and left permanently 1 with no plan on coming back until Derrin is sentenced”. 2 3

¶ [21] Mr. Eric Carmona Jimenez in his victim impact statement describes the impact upon 4 him of the assault. He says that he had been good friends with the Defendant from 5 2014 to 2020. He and the Defendant used to attend the same gym. He states: 6 7 “I started to suffer from headaches, anxiety, trouble sleeping and nightmares after 8 this assault and going to the police. When I found out Derrin was no longer on 24 9 hour house arrest only after a few weeks after the assault, I was extremely 10 disappointed with the judicial system and also scared for my safety. I decided it was 11 safest for me to take a break from the Island. I resigned from my job and moved 12 back to …, until I feel safe enough to return. This has affected my mental health and 13 I was living in a state of fear. I have been going to therapy to help me with my 14 anxiety. This has also affected me financially because I resigned from my job as 15 …….. and move countries.” 16 17 ANTECEDENT HISTORY 18 19

¶ [22] The Defendant has no previous criminal record. He has a record of seven traffic 20 offences including one for Driving under the Influence. 21 22 SOCIAL INQUIRY REPORT 23 24

¶ [23] The Department of Community Rehabilitation (DCR) has provided a Social Inquiry 25 Report (SIR) dated 21st October 2021 in respect of the Defendant. This provides 26 information as to his background and circumstances. 27 28 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 14 of 33

¶ [24] He is 32 years old and is self-employed in the tourism industry. He has two young 1 children, both sons. The eldest is 6 years old and is resident with his mother in Canada. 2 The second is 2 years of age, the son of the victim Mannarino mentioned above. 3 4

¶ [25] The Defendant was raised in a stable home. It is said that one of his parents was a 5 stern disciplinarian which led to his being exposed to an authoritarian style along with 6 opposing parental views. As a result of this the Defendant sometimes lived outside 7 the home. The conclusion of the Probation Officer is that there was early exposure to 8 aggression and violence which may have had serious implications for his adult life. 9 He graduated high school and started but did not complete various tertiary education 10 courses. He was gainfully employed at various jobs before starting his own tour boat 11 business in 2017. 12 13

¶ [26] The Officer assessed him as not being at a point where he is contemplating change 14 and not a suitable candidate for the men’s nonviolence programme. 15 16

¶ [27] He was also assessed using the LS/CMI/Risk Need Assessment tool. His overall risk 17 of re-offending was assessed as high. Of the 8 criminogenic factors used in the 18 assessment, he scored in the very high category for pro-criminal attitude and 19 orientation and in the high category, for anti-social patterns. 20 21

¶ [28] With respect to the first, the Officer says that he displayed no remorse, denied or 22 minimized the offences and justified his behaviour towards the victims. The Officer 23 concludes that he appears to have underlying issues that may be contributing to his 24 lack of victim empathy. 25 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 15 of 33

¶ [29] The Officer also states: 1 2 “During the interviews, it was observed that Mr. Ebanks displayed detachment and 3 a nonchalant attitude towards the offences for which he was charged. He minimized, 4 denied and blamed when addressing every count for which he was found guilty. He 5 initially denied being part of any violence outside of the offence until his second 6 interview when the Summary of Facts was read and community collateral 7 information was obtained. 8 9 Based on the screening done for the Men’s Non-Violence Programme (MNVP), he 10 denied using intimidation, isolation, coercion and threats as well as physical and 11 emotional abuse. It had to be pointed out to him to consider the offences for which 12 he was found guilty. Consequently, no remorse was observed. From this 13 assessment, it was also gathered that he does not consider alcohol an issue in his 14 offending behavior. In reference to the incident related to Miss Mannarino and her 15 friend, he purported that it (alcohol) only “delayed” him from escaping his attackers 16 sooner”. 17 18

¶ [30] With respect to the second element, anti-social patterns, the Officer says that there are 19 possibly unaddressed behavioural concerns from childhood which have presented in 20 adulthood but that specialized assessments for anti-social patterns would need to be 21 conducted. These are needed in order to ensure that the Defendant understands what 22 is taking place. 23 24

¶ [31] Under the criminogenic factor, family/marital, for which the assessment was medium 25 risk of re-offending, the Officer states that there is a background history of fights at 26 school and issues in the home and in relationships which suggest that the offences for 27 which he is before the Court show some escalation. 28 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 16 of 33

¶ [32] His specific risk-need factors include self-management skills and anger management 1 deficits. 2 3

¶ [33] Under sentencing options, the Officer says that extensive intervention is needed to 4 address the concerns raised in the Report. Such an intervention is currently not 5 provided by the Department. Based on his lack of insight and failure to accept 6 responsibility, the Officer states that he is not a candidate for the psycho-educational 7 intervention programs which are the ones provided by the DCR. 8 9 SENTENCING GUIDELINES 10 11

¶ [34] The Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines provide general principles for 12 sentencing and specific guidelines for these offences. 13 14 ASSAULT ABH - LUCIA MANNARINO (LM) 15 16

¶ [35] The maximum sentence for Assault ABH is 5 years’ imprisonment. The Prosecution 17 submits that under the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines this offence falls 18 somewhere between category 1 and category 2. 19 20

¶ [36] The Prosecution submits that it would be difficult to argue that the level of injury, i.e., 21 the bruising to Ms. Mannarino’s face, where the imprint of the Defendant’s shoe can 22 be clearly seen, is serious in the context of the offence and is thus one of higher Harm. 23 However the Prosecution submits further that there are a number of additional 24 aggravating factors which may move the offence into the higher category. These 25 include: 26 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 17 of 33 i. The presence of the young child who may have witnessed at least a part 1 of the incident and from the photographs taken of him thereafter was 2 clearly distressed by it; 3 ii. Abuse of a position of trust in that the Defendant is the father of the 4 child; 5 iii. The timing of the offence. It took place late at night; 6 iv. The location of the offence. It occurred in the victim’s own home. 7 8

¶ [37] As to Culpability the Prosecution submits that this offence is one of higher Culpability 9 on the basis of the use of a weapon equivalent, that being, a shod foot. 10 11

¶ [38] The Defence submit in response that this is a category 2 offence and that there are no 12 features which would cause the offence to fall into a higher category. It is argued that 13 the offence occurred in a domestic setting where the defendant was invited into the 14 home by the message earlier sent. He did not use force to enter the home. The Defence 15 also point out that the evidence of Ms. McDonald was that the child slept through the 16 incident and was awakened thereafter. 17 18

¶ [39] As to culpability the Defence submit that it is accepted that the victims stated that they 19 were kicked by the Defendant. It is argued however that the injuries are bruises which 20 are not consistent with sustained kicking. 21 22

¶ [40] In the Court’s view, this is an offence of lower Harm. The bruising injury to Ms. 23 Mannarino cannot be said to be serious in the context of this offence. 24 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 18 of 33

¶ [41] As to Culpability, this is at the level of higher Culpability because of the use of a 1 weapon equivalent. 2 3

¶ [42] It is thus a category two (2) offence. The starting point is 12 months’ custody with a 4 range of sentencing of 6 to 18 months’ custody. 5 6

¶ [43] As to the aggravating factors submitted by the Prosecution: 7 8 a. The presence of the young child: The evidence of the two witnesses as to 9 whether the child witnessed any part of the incident was different. One witness 10 said that from the position in which she was, in the course of the incident, she 11 looked up and saw the child standing at the top of the stairs. The child was also 12 visibly distressed after the incident. It is the view of this Court that the presence 13 of the young child constitutes an aggravating factor in this case. 14 15 b. The location of the offence: This was the home of the victim Mannarino. This 16 is the very place where she should feel safe and protected. The Defendant had 17 been invited to the home to visit his child. However, having been asked to leave, 18 because of his behaviour, the Defendant did not do so, and instead he launched 19 an attack upon her in her own home. This Court finds that the location of the 20 offence is an additional aggravating factor. 21 22 c. The timing of the offence: This was sometime after 9 pm. It was after hours. 23 This is also an aggravating factor although, in the Court’s view, it is of less 24 weight than the other factors. 25 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 19 of 33 d. Abuse of position of trust: The Defence submitted that abuse of trust is usually 1 engaged when a person is employed in a profession or is given responsibility 2 that allows special access to the victim and that there are no elements of this 3 type in this offence. The submissions of the Defence are in part accepted on this 4 aspect by this Court as “Abuse of Trust” is directly connected to the presence 5 of the child, which is already accounted for as an aggravating factor, and the 6 Court must be careful to avoid double counting. 7 8

¶ [44] From the starting point of 12 months on the Assault ABH of Ms. Mannarino the 9 sentence is increased to 15 months’ imprisonment because of the three aggravating 10 factor (a, b and c immediately above). 11 12 WOUNDING – LUCIA MANNARINO (LM) 13 14

¶ [45] The maximum sentence for the offence of Wounding is 7 years’ imprisonment. The 15 Prosecution submits that this offence falls somewhere between category 2 and 3. 16 17

¶ [46] It is conceded that it is one of lesser Harm because of the nature of the injury and one 18 of lower Culpability because there are no higher culpability factors which are present. 19 However it is submitted that the four aggravating factors referenced above apply 20 equally to this offence and move it in the direction of category 2. 21 22

¶ [47] The Defence submit that it is properly a category 3 offence and that there are no 23 aggravating factors which would serve to move this offence into a higher category. 24 Counsel submitted that the injury is a small puncture wound which did not require 25 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 20 of 33 hospitalization and there is no mention of any treatment being given concerning this 1 injury. 2 3

¶ [48] It is the view of this Court that for the reasons conceded by the Prosecution, this is an 4 offence of lesser Harm and lower Culpability. It is a category 3 offence with a starting 5 point of 12 months’ custody and a sentencing range of Community Service Order to 6 3 years’ custody. 7 8

¶ [49] From a starting point of 12 months’ custody the Court takes into account the 3 9 aggravating factors identified above, which serve to increase the sentence to one of 10 15 months’ imprisonment. 11 12 ASSAULT ABH – SHALLYN MCDONALD (SM) 13 14

¶ [50] The Prosecution submits that the offence of Assault ABH against Shallyn McDonald 15 is a category 1 offence. 16 17

¶ [51] It is argued that this offence resulted in greater Harm as the victim suffered a traumatic 18 brain injury and multiple nasal fractures. 19 20

¶ [52] As to Culpability, the Prosecution point to the use of a shod foot and that on the 21 evidence of Ms. McDonald it was prolonged or repeated in that as described by her, 22 there were multiple kicks and punches. 23 24

¶ [53] The Court has considered the medical evidence in this case. It was in the form of 25 agreed admissions. Ms. McDonald was examined at the George Town Hospital at 26 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 21 of 33 23:35 hours on the 6th September 2020. She was observed to be alert, cooperative and 1 not in painful distress. She had minimally displaced nasal fractures along with soft 2 tissue swelling. Following her release on the 7th September 2020, she was again 3 examined on the 29th September 2020 following a referral from her general 4 practitioner. She was found to have a mild traumatic brain injury. Admissions 14 and 5 15 state: 6 7 “14. Her symptoms consisted of daily headaches, blurry vision, insomnia, neck 8 pain, dizziness, fatigue, concentration and attention loss. These symptoms 9 are all common after an individual sustains a mild traumatic brain injury. 10 11

¶ [15] Ms. McDonald was further examined at the Cayman Clinic on the 10th June 12

¶ [2021] She continued to suffer from blurry vision, lethargy, sleep issues, 13 anxiety and PTSD.” 14 15

¶ [54] Having reviewed the medical evidence, this Court accepts the submissions of the 16 Prosecution that the Harm, i.e., a brain injury which appears to have been of extended 17 effect, is serious in the context of this offence. 18 19

¶ [55] It is also accepted that the use of a shod foot is a weapon-equivalent and would place 20 the offence in the category of higher Culpability. 21 22

¶ [56] This is a category one offence under the guidelines with a starting point of 3 years’ 23 custody with a sentencing range of 2 to 4 years’ custody. 24 25

¶ [57] The Prosecution made no arguments as to aggravating factors in respect of this 26 offence. 27 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 22 of 33 ASSAULT ABH - KIMBERLY WOOMER (KW) 1 2

¶ [58] In respect of the bruising of the breast of Ms. Woomer, the Prosecution do not suggest 3 that this is serious in the context of the offence such as to amount to greater Harm. It 4 is submitted that the injury was to an intimate part of Ms. Woomer’s body which 5 should also be considered when considering the level of harm. 6 7

¶ [59] The Culpability is said to be higher because of the repeated or prolonged nature of the 8 assault. The evidence is that it took place over a number of hours and that the victim 9 was subject to more than one episode of violence. In this Court’s view care must be 10 taken to distinguish between other acts of violence some of which were not accepted 11 by the jury and the act of grabbing on to the breast of the victim. It is whether this act 12 was of a prolonged or repeated nature which must be considered. 13 14

¶ [60] In the Court’s view this offence is one of lesser Harm and lower Culpability. It is a 15 category 3 offence with a starting point of a Community Service Order (CSO) and a 16 sentencing range between a fine and 12 months’ custody. 17 18

¶ [61] The submission of the Prosecution that there are three aggravating factors is accepted. 19 These are: 20 21 i. This was in the victim’s own home; 22 ii. It was late at night into the early hours of morning; and 23 iii. The victim’s phone was taken from her so that she was unable to report 24 the incident. 25 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 23 of 33

¶ [62] From the starting point, the sentence would be increased to 6 months’ custody as a 1 result of the aggravating factors. 2 3 WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT - KIMBERLY WOOMER (KW) 4 5

¶ [63] The maximum penalty in the Cayman Islands for the offence of Wrongful 6 Confinement is 5 years’ imprisonment. 7 8

¶ [64] There is no offence of wrongful confinement in England and Wales. In the absence of 9 local and English guidelines the Prosecution have referred the Court to the English 10 offence of kidnapping. In England and Wales the penalty for kidnapping is life 11 imprisonment. 12 13

¶ [65] The Prosecution cite the case of R v Spence and Thomas3. That case involved the 14 kidnapping of young girls for the purpose of transporting them to another place for 15 prostitution arrangements. The English Court made the distinction between the more 16 serious offences of hostage taking and ransoms which will be met with significant 17 sentences and those at the other end of the scale such as offences in a domestic setting. 18 19

¶ [66] The Court stated: 20 21 “... At the other end of the scale are those offences which can perhaps scarcely be 22 classed as kidnapping at all. They very often arise as a sequel to family tiffs or 23 lovers’ disputes, and they seldom require anything more than 18 months’ 24 imprisonment, and sometimes a great deal less...” 25 26 3 [1983] 45 CR. App. R. (S) 143. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 24 of 33

¶ [67] This Court proposes to use a sentence of 18 months as a starting point. There are no 1 aggravating factors which are taken into account which would serve to increase this 2 sentence from the starting point. 3 4 ASSAULT ABH – ERIC CARMONA JIMENEZ (ECJ) 5 6

¶ [68] The Prosecution accepts that this is an offence of lesser Harm and lower Culpability. 7 The starting point is a CSO with a sentencing range of sentence of a fine to 12 months’ 8 custody. This offence took place at the Coral Beach Restaurant where others were 9 present. 10 11 THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEFENCE 12 13

¶ [69] On behalf of the Defendant, it is submitted that he has no previous convictions in a 14 Criminal Court as distinct from the Traffic Court and should be treated as a man of 15 good character. He owns and operates his own charter company. He comes from a 16 close family, has good relations with his siblings and has long term friends from 17 primary school. 18 19

¶ [70] His life is said to have changed dramatically since the incident. He has had stringent 20 bail conditions including a curfew and monitoring and has not been permitted to enter 21 the district of West Bay except for work purposes. 22 23

¶ [71] He is said to be remorseful and sorry for all that has happened. Counsel says that he 24 recognizes that he has a lot of work to do. He has sought counselling of his own 25 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 25 of 33 volition and over the past 4 months, he has been attempting to work through his issues 1 and concerns in a therapeutic setting. 2 3

¶ [72] Counsel highlights that in relation to Ms. Mannarino, the jury in acquitting the 4 Defendant of the more serious charge clearly found that he did not intend to cause her 5 serious injury. 6 7

¶ [73] Counsel said that it is accepted that the custody threshold has been passed but asks 8 the Court to consider four matters in particular: 9 10 i. The Defendant had no previous criminal convictions before these 11 proceedings. 12 ii. The course of behaviour was over a relatively short period. 13 iii. It is clear from all accounts that the Defendant’s reasoning must have 14 been affected by alcohol. He will require further insight into how 15 alcohol affects his behaviour which will require professional assistance. 16 iv. There have been no breaches of his very stringent bail conditions. 17 DECISION 18 19

¶ [74] In mitigation this Court takes into account all that has been said about the Defendant in the 20 various reports and by his Counsel. He is 32 years old, a man of previous good character. 21 He has no previous convictions of any kind in the criminal courts. He has two young 22 children for whom he is said to provide financial support. He has been gainfully employed 23 for his adult life. He has had childhood issues which may have affected him in adulthood. 24 There has been some delay between the incident and the trial. He is said by his Counsel to 25 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 26 of 33 be remorseful for what happened and has started counselling of his own volition. Alcohol 1 was involved and may have affected his behaviour. The Court proposes in each case to 2 apply a mitigation factor of 20%. The following are the sentences: 3 4 OFFENCE VICTIM STARTING POINT - MONTHS + AGGRAVATING FACTORS SUB- TOTAL MONTHS MINUS MITIGATING FACTORS TOTAL MONTHS Assault ABH LM 12 3 15 3 12 Wounding LM 12 3 15 3 12 Damage to Phone LM 1 Assault ABH SM 36 - 36 7.2 29 Theft of phone SM 1 Assault ABH KW Community Service Order 6 6 1.2 5 Wrongful Confinement KW 18 - 18 3.6

¶ [14] 4 Damage of Spectacles KW 1 Assault ABH ECJ Community Service Order - 1 5 SENTENCE 6

¶ [75] This Court has considered whether any part of these sentences may be suspended. The 7 Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines provide general guidance as to the aims of 8 sentencing, assessing the seriousness of an offence, the custody threshold and the principle 9 of proportionality. The Court reminds itself of this guidance in approaching this case 10 including that, in sentencing an offender, the Court has to balance a number of competing 11 interests and objectives and to tailor the punishment to the individual circumstances of 12 each offender, while ensuring that it is in line with the seriousness of the offence. The 13 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 27 of 33 Court should consider which of the aims which govern the sentencing process will be best 1 served by the sentence to be passed. The aims which are set out in the Alternative 2 Sentencing Act 2008 include deterrence, punishment, rehabilitation and restitution. 3 4

¶ [76] The Guidelines also provide that a custodial sentence should not be passed unless the 5 offence is so serious that no other sentence can be justified for the offence. Custody should 6 be reserved for the most serious offences. Even where the custody threshold is passed, 7 custody can still be avoided in light of personal mitigation or if there is suitable community 8 intervention which would meet the aims of punishment and rehabilitation. 9 10

¶ [77] This Court considers these offences to be serious ones. Eight of these offences were 11 committed against three women who can be described as vulnerable compared to the 12 Defendant. The evidence at trial was that he bench presses some 300 pounds, is muscular 13 and athletic. Given his size and physical strength, the impact of his assaults on the victims 14 as detailed in their own words can only be described as being akin to acts of physical horror 15 visited upon them. 16 17

¶ [78] In the first incident, there were two women and one managed to escape thus forcing an end 18 to the incident. In the second, the victim was alone and was unable to escape on her own. 19 She was subjected throughout the period of her confinement to repeated acts of violence 20 and rendered helpless by physical restraint, fear, the loss of her spectacles and the inability 21 to use her phone. The details of the resulting trauma to each victim including Mr. Carmona 22 are set out in the victim impact reports and statements referenced above. 23 24 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 28 of 33

¶ [79] The Defendant is said to be at high risk of re-offending. DCR programs are said to be 1 unsuitable for him because of his approach to the offences. There is nothing in his personal 2 circumstances which indicates that there is suitable community intervention available and 3 that a custodial sentence is unavoidable. The custody threshold has clearly been passed 4 and in the view of this Court a custodial sentence is unavoidable. 5 6 TOTALITY OF SENTENCE 7 8

¶ [80] Paragraph 6 of the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines with respect to concurrent and 9 consecutive sentences provides as follows: 10 11 “6.1 Concurrent Sentences 12 It is wrong in principle to impose sentences to run consecutively where those 13 offences, though distinct in law, arose out of a single act so that the overall 14 criminality for the offender can be represented by concurrent sentences. 15 Concurrent sentences will ordinarily be appropriate where: 16 Offences arise out of a related incident or facts. 17 There is a series of offences of the same or similar kind especially 18 when committed against the same victim. 19 Where concurrent sentence are passed, the sentence should reflect 20 the overall criminality involved. The sentence should be 21 appropriately aggravated by the presence of the associated offences 22 and thus the court may increase sentence for the principal offence 23 to reflect the gravity of conduct: 24 25 6.2 Consecutive Sentences 26 Consecutive sentences will ordinarily be appropriate where: 27 Offences arise out of unrelated facts or incidents. 28 Offences are of the same of similar kind but where the overall 29 criminality will not sufficiently be reflected by concurrent sentences 30 for example: 31 Where offences are committed against different victims. 32 Where sexual offences or domestic violence are committed 33 against the same individual. 34 Where the offender commits the same or similar offence 35 after being arrested for the original offence.” 36 37 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 29 of 33

¶ [81] In this case the offences have been committed against different victims, at different 1 locations and on multiple occasions. While mindful of the principle of totality, this Court 2 considers that it is appropriate that some aspect of the sentence be consecutive. The 3 sentences are to run as follows: 4  The sentences for offences as against Ms. Mannarino and Ms. McDonald are to run 5 concurrently but consecutive to the sentence of 14.4 months for wrongful 6 confinement of Ms. Woomer for a total of 43.4 months. 7 8

¶ [82] Time served is to be deducted. 9 10 TIME SPENT ON CURFEW WITH MONITOR 11 12

¶ [83] The Defendant was on bail from the Summary Court from the 11th September 2020 to 13 November 2020 which was a period of a 24-hour curfew. 14 15

¶ [84] Between November 2020 and 18th December 2020 he was on a curfew from 6pm to 6am 16 imposed by the Grand Court. This continued except for days when he had work when his 17 curfew was 10pm. On the 21st April 2021, the bail was varied by the Grand Court to a 18 curfew time of 10pm to 6am. 19 20

¶ [85] The Prosecution submits that the Defendant ought not to benefit from the time he was on 21 a monitor because of the delay caused by the Defence. Two trial dates were vacated at the 22 request of the Defence. The trial dates were vacated because the Defence were awaiting 23 phone evidence from an expert overseas witness. 24 25 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 30 of 33

¶ [86] The Defence submit in response that there were delays caused by the Prosecution with 1 respect to settling the Indictment in the Grand Court and there were adjourned hearings in 2 the Summary Court because papers were not served. 3 4

¶ [87] The Court notes that the phone evidence was subsequently received by the Defence and 5 was used in the course of the trial. There is every indication that the requests made were 6 for genuine reasons to do with preparation of the Defence case. Against this background 7 as well as the assertion that there may also have been delays on the part of the Prosecution, 8 it is proposed to give such credit as appears appropriate to the circumstances of the curfew. 9 10

¶ [88] The Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines at paragraph 12 deals with reduction in 11 sentence for time spent on remand subject to conditions curtailing liberty. It states that the 12 court should: 13 14 “… consider whether credit should be given for time spent on bail where conditions 15 have been imposed which curtail the liberty of the defendant. This is most likely to 16 be relevant where a defendant has been subjected to a curfew, especially where 17 compliance with that curfew can be verified through electronic monitoring”. 18 19

¶ [89] The Guidelines go on to list the relevant factors to be taken into account in the exercise of 20 discretion which include: 21 22 i. The total length of time the defendant has been subject to a curfew; 23 ii. The number of hours each day that curfew was imposed during the curfew 24 period; 25 iii. Whether the curfew included daytime hours or was solely a night time 26 curfew (recognising that being indoors at night during, for example, normal 27 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 31 of 33 sleeping hours may be less of a curtailment of liberty than being indoors 1 during the day); 2 iv. Any breach of the conditions of curfew. 3 4

¶ [90] The Guidelines further provide that in deciding how to exercise its discretion in the 5 absence of statutory provisions in the Cayman Islands, the Court will bear in mind the 6 statutory provisions in England and Wales as set out in s.240A of the Criminal Justice Act 7 (CJA) 2003 (as amended) in relation to an electronically-monitored curfew. 8 9

¶ [91] In the case of R v. Nicholas Tibbetts the Grand Court stated: 10 11 “74. I take the Cayman Islands Guidelines as a starting point. There is clearly a 12 discretion as to whether, and to what extent, credit should be given. To 13 adopt the defence submission that the practice of the Cayman Islands is to 14 automatically deduct half the time on curfew, would take away the 15 discretion clearly set out in the Guidelines. Each case has to be considered 16 on its own facts – for example the conditions of the curfew will vary 17 considerably in cases – some being more onerous than others.” 18 19

¶ [92] In this case, the conditions of his curfew and monitoring were initially onerous. He will 20 receive credit of one half the number of days from the 11th September 2020 to the 21st 21 April 2021, or one half of 222 days for 111 days. 22 23

¶ [93] The conditions were less onerous when his curfew was revised to 10pm to 6am. This was 24 mostly during the night hours. He will also receive credit of one quarter for the days 25 between the 21st April 2021, and today, a total of 225 days, for credit of 56 days. 26 27

¶ [94] The total credit is 167 days. 28 29 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 32 of 33 APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTION ORDER 1 2

¶ [95] The Prosecution applies under the Protection from Domestic Violence Act (2021) 3 Revision) for a Protection Order with respect to Ms. Mannarino. The application is 4 supported by the Affidavit of DC Elizabeth Owens. 5 6

¶ [96] The response of the Defence is that such an order is not necessary as there have been 7 no incidents between the parties since the offences on this Indictment and no breaches 8 of his bail conditions. The Defence argue that such an order is not justified as there 9 has been no contact or attempt to contact the victim. Counsel indicates that the 10 Defendant understands that there should be no contact with her. He is willing to give 11 an undertaking to abide by four conditions: 12 13 i. Not to communicate/contact Lucia Mannarino, in any way, directly 14 or indirectly save for communication through a defined person 15 relating to the child. A defined person could be an Officer of the 16 RCIPS, Social Worker, Medical Professional, the parents of Derrin 17 Ebanks or any other person deemed suitable by the Court. Contact 18 includes all methods of contact including email, social media and 19 text. 20 21 ii. Not to approach or knowingly be within 100 yards of Lucia 22 Mannarino. 23 24 iii. Not to enter [the place of work] or attend the home of Ms. 25 Mannarino. 26 27 iv. Not to harass or threaten Ms. Mannarino. 28 29 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sentence Judgment. R v. Ebanks (Derrin Kennedy). Ind. 78/2020. Coram Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. Date: 2nd December 2021. Page 33 of 33

¶ [97] Counsel submits that if the Court is minded to make a Protection Order these are the 1 conditions which should be considered. 2 3

¶ [98] Given the circumstances of this case the Court is satisfied that a Protection Order is 4 necessary in order to protect the victim. An order is thus made in terms of the amended 5 draft for a period of 3 years following the Defendant’s release from Prison. 6 7 8 9 Dated this the 2nd day of December 2021 10 11 12 Honourable Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. 13 Judge of the Grand Court 14 15