Ryan Ebanks v R

¶ Criminal Appeal 6 of 2020 – Ryan Ebanks v The Queen - Criminal Appeal - Judgment

IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL
ON APPEAL FROM THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CRIMINAL
DIVISION
CRIMINAL APPEAL 6 of 2020
IND 33/2019
SC#0842/2019
BETWEEN:
RYAN EBANKS
Appellant
- and –
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
BEFORE:
The Rt. Hon Sir John Goldring, President
The Hon. Sir Richard Field, Justice of Appeal
The Hon. C Dennis Morrison, Justice of Appeal
Date of Hearing:
4th September 2020
Appearances:
Mr. Keith Myers for the Appellant
Mr. Greg Walcolm, Office of the DPP for the Respondent

¶ JUDGMENT
Transcript of oral judgment dated 4th September 2020
Approved for Release 28th October 2020

¶ GOLDRING, Pres:
Introduction
1.
On 18 December 2019, following a plea of guilty to aggravated burglary, the Applicant, who is a
57-year-old man with 40 previous convictions, was sentenced by Acting Justice Dobbs to 10 years'
imprisonment. He seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

¶ Criminal Appeal 6 of 2020 – Ryan Ebanks v The Queen - Criminal Appeal - Judgment

¶ The facts
2.
The victim of the robbery was 78-year-old man, Mr Raybe Hydes, who lived alone on West Bay
Road. He was a sick man, undergoing treatment. On the evening of 9 March 2019, Mr Hydes had
been at home watching television. He fell asleep on the sofa. He next recalled being awoken by a
loud noise like a bomb. That was the Applicant smashing the front door with a concrete block. His
face was covered by a handkerchief. He had Mr Hydes’ machete in his hand. It had been by the
front door. The Applicant demanded jewellery, specifically, a bag containing the jewellery. Mr
Hydes, who unsurprisingly was disorientated, told the Applicant it was on the dining room table.
On seeing it was not, the Applicant chopped at Mr Hydes’ head with the machete. Mr Hydes raised
his hand to protect his head. He received injuries to his left hand. The Applicant took the watch
and phone from the dining room table and dragged Mr Hydes back into the house. Mr Hydes
grabbed his machete, which was by the door, and tried to defend himself. A struggle ensued. The
Applicant disarmed Mr Hydes and threw away the machete. He dragged Mr Hydes outside again
in an attempt to find the jewellery. When Mr Hydes tried to escape, he was dragged back inside
and hit again, this time to the right side of the body. Mr Hydes retreated to his bedroom until the
house was quiet. He then went to his nephew's home across the road and the police were called.
3.
Mr Hydes was taken to hospital. There was considerable blood at the scene. Mr Hydes suffered a
number of serious injuries. They included a 7cm wound on the scalp, a skull fracture, a laceration
to the scalp, frontal contusion, an injury to the left elbow, an incised wound to the right arm, a
compound fracture of the mid shaft of the humerus, muscle laceration and abrasions on the knees.
4.
When the police arrived, they found Mr Hydes suffering from serious injuries. Certain personal
items were missing. They included several items of jewellery, two watches, three bracelets, two
necklaces and three rings. They were all in his motor vehicle which was parked in the yard. His
Samsung phone and a watch were on the dining room table.
5.
The police had received information that the Applicant had been spotted lurking in the area of Mr
Hydes' gate just before the incident. The Applicant was arrested. When interviewed, he made no
comment. His DNA was on the cement block found at the scene, on the machete, and Mr Hydes’
blood was on his shoes.

¶ Criminal Appeal 6 of 2020 – Ryan Ebanks v The Queen - Criminal Appeal - Judgment

The victim impact statement
6.
There was a victim impact statement which had been prepared by Mr Hydes' daughter. The
Applicant takes issue with that statement. He submits it contains a number of falsehoods and has
resulted in him being sentenced more harshly than otherwise he would have been. In particular, it
refers to Mr Hydes undergoing surgery, to having a metal rod in his right arm, which it is said he
cannot use and to his children having to assist Mr Hydes with his living. It also describes him being
paranoid about sudden noises in his home: that he had been changed.
Previous convictions
7.
As to the Applicant's 40 previous convictions, the judge mentioned those which were more recent
and relevant. On 13 March 2012, for robbery and possession of an imitation firearm with intent,
he was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment, subsequently reduced on appeal to 10. On 23 May of
that year, for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, he was imprisoned for three
months. On 9 August 2016, for a similar offence, he was imprisoned for six months.
The social inquiry report
8.
In the social inquiry report, the probation officer expressed the view that the Applicant had little
genuine remorse or guilt for his actions. He displayed no victim empathy. His risk of re-offending
was assessed as "very high".
The psychiatric report
9.
Although there was a psychiatric report, which we have now had and seen and read, it was not
before the judge. The Applicant, at that stage, was representing himself.
The judge’s sentencing remarks
10.
In what seem to us exemplary sentencing remarks, the judge set out the basis of the sentence which
she was passing. She said that it was an extremely grave offence with significant aggravating
features. Referring to the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines, she stated that as far as
culpability was concerned, the offence fell into the higher range, namely Category A. That was
because there was produced and used a weapon to inflict violence. The use of force was significant.
The offence fell into Category 1. There was serious physical harm to the victim in his home.
Moreover, there was the additional element of the victim being in the premises.
11.
The judge took as a starting point 7 years with a range of 5 to 14. She said a significant uplift was

¶ Criminal Appeal 6 of 2020 – Ryan Ebanks v The Queen - Criminal Appeal - Judgment

required for the fact this was an aggravated form of burglary. She said that the court did not need a
psychological report to know that the incident must have had a significant emotional/psychological
effect on this vulnerable old man. She said the victim impact statement gave some insight into that
aspect. She took as a starting point 11 years. She set out as aggravating features the fact that the
victim was vulnerable by virtue of age and health, that the Applicant knew that he was an elderly
man, living alone. He knew too about the jewellery bag and targeted Mr Hydes. The offence was
committed at night. The Applicant was under the influence of drink and drugs. He sought to conceal
his identity.
12.
The judge referred to the previous convictions, the failure to respond to previous sentences, the
fact, as she stated, that this offence was very prevalent in the jurisdiction and was having a
significant impact on people's lives. She took, in all the circumstances, a starting point of 16 years.
13.
The judge said she did not accept that there was genuine remorse or that the offence was unplanned.
She did accept, on the basis of the Crown's acceptance, that the Applicant, although causing serious
bodily harm, did not intend to inflict it, and she accepted that the value of the property taken was
low, given that the Applicant did not discover the bag with the jewellery which he was seeking.
She gave small credit for the mitigation, bringing the figure of 16 years down to 15.
14.
The judge then carefully set out why, in her view, the Applicant was entitled to full credit for his
plea of guilty. That reduced the sentence to one of ten years.
The grounds of appeal
15.
Mr Myers, on the Applicant's behalf, makes a number of points.
16.
He submits that the judge should not have taken account of the prevalence of such robberies in
Cayman. Reliance is placed on the English decision of Bondzie (2016) 1 WLR 2004. He submits
that the psychiatric report, which the judge did not have, provides some mitigation. He in particular
refers to the paragraphs which reference the difficulties the Applicant had in his upbringing. We
note the report also refers to the post-traumatic stress disorder from which the author says the
Applicant suffers. Mr Myers submits that the starting point the judge took was too high, that,
furthermore, the judge made in effect two uplifts: first, to reflect the aggravation from simple
burglary to aggravated and, second, a further aggravation of the aggravated burglary.

¶ Criminal Appeal 6 of 2020 – Ryan Ebanks v The Queen - Criminal Appeal - Judgment

17.
Mr Myers submits, on specific instructions, that the victim impact statement was inaccurate and
misleading. Moreover, it was not prepared in accordance with the law of the Cayman Islands
because it had been prepared by the daughter.
Our view
18.
In our judgment, the sentence imposed by the learned judge was not arguably manifestly excessive.
19.
First, while the reference by the judge to the prevalence of such offending was plainly peripheral
to the sentence imposed, in a small jurisdiction such as the Cayman Islands, it is not appropriate to
apply the case of Bondzie.: see the observations of this court in paragraph 115 of Ramoon and
Douglas, Cayman Islands Appeal Reports at 34 and 35 of 2016.
20.
Second, it does not seem to us that the psychiatric report begins to render the sentence manifestly
excessive.
21.
Third, we do not accept that the judge was not entitled to rely upon this victim impact statement. It
was submitted by the prosecution and prepared on behalf of the victim: see s.53(1) and s.53(2) of
the Alternative Sentencing Law (2008 Revision). We do not accept that such a statement must
invariably be written by the victim personally. There will inevitably be cases in which a victim may
not be able to prepare such a statement and/or in which better and more detailed information may
be obtained from someone other than the victim.
22.
That said, in this case, it seems to us self-evident that this elderly man inevitably suffered very
significantly as a result of such a horrific and violent offence as occurred.
23.
Finally, the judge was, in our view, plainly entitled to impose the uplifts which she did, for the
reasons which she so carefully explained.
24.
In the circumstances, we refuse leave to appeal.