R v Shane E Connor

¶ <doc> IN THE BETWEEN: BEFORE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and Shane E Connor JUDGEMENT m transcript of oral judgment given on 23 August 2016 Released 1 September 2016 defendant Morrison, JA In 2015, the appellant entered pleas of guilty in the and one count of attempted burglary contrary to s. appeal Appeal Appeal and Appel Grand Court to one 243(1)(b) and 243(1)(a) respect hearing before Ms each court to rule appellant should be sentence on the go put forward by wa- We take the circu moring of 7 Sep- the sentencing ju in George Town, window. However, aware of what was summoned and, u vely of the Penal Code. On the 19 November 2015 year, J, the appellant was sentenced to 30 month concurrently. The court ordered that the time spent towards the sentence. The appellant has also and that the sentencing judge failed to consider any of mitigation of sentence. instances of the offences to which the appellant pleges summary of the facts. At approximately 10 October 2015, the appellant attempted to gain entry with the aid of security devices, the residents of the happening and the appellant was disturbed. The police were after a sentencing on remand by the appeal against his properly the matters aced guilty from lock on the to a residential unit at unit became ed and secured police were he appellant was </doc>
<doc> spotted nearby in police, he was an had been taken to The appellant was convictions, 25 in a commercial but unlicensed firearm

¶ [2010] In determining the report and his as- societal role, the vicinity of another unit in the same area and, rested. He had with him items of property which, from the second unit. is 38 years old at the time of his arrest. He had made all, for offences ranging from disorderly conduct to. He had three previous convictions for burglary, glary for which he was sentenced to four years' im- appropriate sentence to impose on the appellant and remorse expressed by him to the author of theft that he had offended to help his parents whi- after a chase by the is it would turn out, ny previous possession of an the last of which was imprisonment in July the judge took into o were in need. further informa- the fact that the a high risk for future possibly a susten- pleaded guilty we- non-custodial seri- terms of the Cay- equated to an off- range of two to si- Accordingly, the Notwithstanding t behalf the judge real difference to appellant's previous judge determined would have been Dilbert and Samuel was also placed before the judge in mitigation of author of the social inquiry report assessed the appropriate sentence. But, given that the offences to which sentenced by a repeat offender, the judge sentence could not be justified. The judge therefore chan-is lands! Sentencing Guidelines, the offences hence of medium culpability falling within the category of offences attracted a starting point of four years' imprisonment for years. he plea in mitigation offered by Miss Fosuhene on took the view that there were no mitigating factors sentence. Therefore, applying the plainly aggravating convictions, in particular his recent conviction for theft, a contested case, a sentance of five years' appropriate. This the judge discounted by one-third of its attention having been drawn to the decision in 2010[ CILR 10] in which this court confirmed sentence. Despite appellant as being at all-custodial or in the appellant had determined that a considered that, in insidered that, in combination y two for harm. imprisonment in a he appellant's that could make any ing factor of the in his conviction imprisonment giving full credit to of this court in R v judge on a guilty if undoubtedly was, then gave a further been brought to imprisonment. In support of the c series of events w appellant spendin he was never con- found himself "in a support or place to of explanation and fea to give less than full credit in cases, such as where the evidence against the offender is overwhelming 25 percent discount to allow for the additional his attention and so, by this means, arrived at a set challenge to the sentence. Miss Fosuhene drew to which had occurred in 2011." These events, it was said a total of 30 months in custody in respect of four rated. As a result of these matters, it was submitted very hopeless situation, out of work and without a live". These and other matters had been put before mitigation but appeared to have been wholly relea- his case tters which had elming. The judge sentence of 30 months' our attention a did, resulted in the offences for which d the appellant had ney means of e the judge by way ted. </doc>
<doc> Responding forthe inappropriatefor agree. Theconsi- 30-monthperiod Hutchinsonpointed furtherincarcerat judge'sspecificre- inquiryreportand urgedinmitigation theaggravatinga Beforeus,MissH eCrown,MissHutchinsonsubmittedthatitwouldthesentencingjudgetohavetakenanyotherappenderationswhichledtotheappellantbeingrenderedtowerenotbeforethejudge.Andinanredout,thedecisiontoengageinconductwhichmon,ashedeeditdid,wasentirelytheappellant'sinferencetothemattersadvancedintheappellant'slydemonstratesthathehadinmindallmattersinvolved nottheirdisagreeingfactors. Fosuhenewasintheendunabletomakegoodamentionthatthematerialplacedbeforethejudgewas, therefore,seenoreasontodissentfromthosemitigatingfactors. havebeenwholly each.Weentirely dincustodyforthe vent,asMiss ghtleadtohis ourview,the atcouldproperlybe judgesanalysisof thereforedidnot insufficientto enablehimtode- Fosuhene didsu- informationshow fullyapprisedof erredinanyway. Forthesereasons courtcanproperly discretion,andw NewmanJA FieldJA MorrisonJA Itappropriatelywiththequestionofmitigation.Howmitthatthesentencewasmanifestlyexcessiveintothejudge.Forourpart,wearequitesatisfiediftherelievantfacts.Thereis,therefore,nobasisforrivingatthelevelofdiscountoffered. S,weareoftheviewthatnobasishasbeenshownintereewiththejudge'sverycarefulexerciseofadeclinetodoso.Theappealisaccordinglydismis- </doc>
<doc> IN THE BETWEEN: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CRIMINAL HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and Shane E Connor CAYMAN ISLANDS CRIMINAL FORM 18 RULE 80(1) & 81(1) SLANDS APPEAL 27/15 IND 74/15 C08459/2015 Respondent NOTIFICATION To: The Attorney This is to give leave to appeal the 19 day of INDO074/2015 The Court of Ap- August 2016 gi-

¶ [1] Applica-

¶ [2] Sentence

¶ [3] Transcri- ATION TO AUTHORITIES OF RESULT OF General you notice that SHANE EDWARD CONNOR has against his Sentence passed upon him by the Governor, 2015 as set out below: Attempted Burglary 30 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT TO RUN CONCU- TIME SPENT IN CUSTODY TO BE DEDUCTED. appeal has finally determined the said appeal, and hereinin to the effect following: Motion for leave to appeal sentence refused. Appealant of reasons given orally to be released. APPEAL ing sought and Court on RENT. s this 23 day of Dated this 1 day of Tricia Hutchinso of September, 2016 </doc>