1 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS· 2 HOLDEN AT GEORGE TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN 3 CRIMINAL SIDE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 In Open Court on 4 to 15 August 2014 14 Before the Honourable Chief Justice 15 16 REGINA v RAZIEL JEFFERS Cause No. IND. 15 OF 2011 17 APPEARANCES: Miss Chervil Richards QC and Miss Candia James for the Crown 18 19 20 Mr. Brian Q'Niel QC instructed by Ms Fiona Robertson of Samson & McGrath for the Defendant 21 22 RULING ON NO CASE SUBMISSION 23
The defendant is charged on an indictment that alleges that he, together with one 24 Jordan Manderson, on the 11 of March 2010, at 28 Malwinas Way, West Bay, Grand 25 Cayman, murdered Marcos Mauricio Duran. 26 27
The defendant applies that the indictment be dismissed on the basis that the evidence 28 against him would not be sufficient to put him on his trial. He applies pursuant to the 29 provisions of section 8SA of the Criminal Procedure Code, having been committed for 30 trial without the benefit of a preliminary enqUiry and so the Crown takes no issue with 31 his right to make this application. 32 33
Jordan Manderson, who had been previously charged and joined on this indictment for 34 the murder of Mr Duran, was ordered to be separately tried and subsequently tried and 35 acquitted by Justice Quin sitting without a jury. 36 37
It is accepted nonetheless that the case against the defendant must be examined 38 according to the evidence as it would relate to him. Ruling On No Case Submission - Regina v Raziel Jeffers -IND NO. 15 of 2011 (Chief Justice) Pagelof4 1
The prosecution accepts that it must of course, be able to adduce evidence upon which 2 a reasonable jury properly directed could be sure that the elements of the offence of 3 murder are established as prescribed by section 181 of the Penal Code. 4 5
For proof of the requisite malice aforethought, the prosecution places reliance upon 6 sections 18 and 19 of the Penal Code and upon the applicable case law. 7 8
Section 18 deems a person who aids or abets or counsels or procures the commission of 9 an offence to have taken part in the commission of the offence and to have committed 10 the offence. 11 12
It is in those capacities that the defendant is alleged to be liable for the murder of Mr 13 Duran. 21 Section 19 of the Penal Code provides: "When two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another, and in the prosecution of such purpose an offence is committed of such a nature that it's commission was a probable consequence of such purpose, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence". 22
Here the prosecution's case depends essentially, upon the evidence of Miss Megan 23 Martinez, a young woman with whom the defendant was in a close relationship at the 24 time ofthe incident and with whom he had a child. Her evidence would be to the effect 25 that the defendant admitted to her he was the person who master-minded a plan to rob 26 Mr Duran, a plan which involved the use of a firearm or firearms which he admitted to 27 have provided to those whom he recruited to carry out the robbery. It follows, says the 28 prosecution, that a reasonable jury properly directed could conclude that the 29 intentional infliction of serious bodily harm was a probable consequence of the robbery. 30 31
I am of the view that a reasonable jury properly directed could conclude on the 32 evidence of Miss Martinez as follows: 33 34 35 36 I. That the defendant admitted to having planned with others to rob the "numbers man", who turned out to be Mr Duran Ruling On No Case Submission - Regina v Razlel Jeffers -IND NO. 15 0/2011 (Chle/ Justice) Page 2 0/4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 II. That the defendant admitted to have provided at least one or more than one of those others with a firearm or firearms, which he said would be used to "frighten" the numbers man. III. That he admitted to being at the apartment of Rita Martinez at 28 Malwinas Way, for the purpose of alerting his accomplices to the arrival of the numbers man (Mr Duran) on 11 March 2010; for the purpose of aiding and abetting the robbery. IV. That he admitted to telephoning his accomplices, who were laying in ambush outside the apartment, actually alerting them to the arrival of the numbers man and of his departure from Rita Martinez' apartment. V. That immediately following the botched robbery and fatal shooting of Mr Duran, the defendant fled from Rita Martinez' apartment for fear of being accosted by the police and hid until he was picked up by Ms Martinez and her friend on Ebanks Road near to the scene of the shooting, in a state of panic. He then told Ms Martinez that "he did not know yet what had happened but the poor numbers man was dead." VI. He admitted to having helped one of his accomplices, Craig Johnson to clean his car on the day after the murder, that which was planned for and used as the getaway car for the robbery, to rid it of any traces of evidence and, implicitly to having discussed with Craig Johnson, what had happened during the incident. He recounted to Ms Martinez what he claims to have been told about the incident, including that Jordan Manderson had gotten into a struggle with the numbers man and the gun Manderson was carrying went off, shooting Manderson in the leg. That another accomplice named Joshua shot the numbers man and a third named Austin managed to retrieve the firearm Manderson had dropped and also shot the numbers man. 32
The forensic evidence in the case shows that Mr Duran was shot at least three times, 33 and that at least two different firearms were involved. The independent evidence also 34 confirms that Jordan Manderson sustained a gunshot injury to the leg and DNA evidence 35 confirmed that he had bled at the scene. 36 Ruling On No Case Submission -Regina v Rozlel Jeffers -IND NO. 15 of 2011 (ChIef Justice) Poge30j4 1
The independent evidence in the case shows that the numbers man, Marcos Duran was 2 shot and killed as he left Rita Martinez's apartment on the 11 March 2010 at about the 3 time that Jeffers is reported by Ms Martinez to have called her in a state of panic and 4 when he told her the shooting had taken place. 5 6
On that evidence if accepted as true, a jury could properly conclude that the defendant 7 was responsible not only for conspiracy to commit the failed robbery of Mr Duran, but 8 also for his murder on the basis that, viewing the circumstances objectively as a whole, 9 it was an offence which was the probable consequence of the carrying out of the 10 planned robbery. See R v Stuart 134 ClR 426 where this statement of the principle was 11 approved. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
In the alternative on the basis of section 59 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it could be left to the jury to consider whether the defendant is guilty of manslaughter on the basis that he was a party to an unlawful act, the attempted robbery; which was by any measure a dangerous act because of the involvement of the firearms, and which resulted in the death of Mr Duran. At the very least, the plan to rob Mr Duran involved the intention to assault him by scaring him with the firearms and so was an unlawful act which, because it involved the use of firearms, was also an inherently dangerous act. \ en court on 5th August 2014 Ie Justice Anthony smellie Ruling On No Case Submission - Regina v Raziel Jeffers - IND NO. 15 of 201.1 (Chief Justice) Page 4 0/4