Smellie CJ
<doc> 1 IN THE GRAND COURT
2 HOLDEN AT GEORGE
3 CRIMINAL SIDE
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
In Open Court on 4
TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN
Caus
REGINA
V
RAZIEL JEFFERS
to 15 August 2014
ce No. IND. 15 OF 2011
14 Before the Honour
15
16
17 APPEARANCES:
18
19
20
21
22
23 1. The defendant
Jordan Manc
Cayman, mu
25
26
27 2. The defendant
against him
28
provisions of the Chief Justice
29
Miss Cheryl Richards QC and Miss Candia James for the G
Mr. Brian O'Niel QC instructed by Ms Fiona Robertson of the Defendant
RULING ON NO CASE SUBMISSION
nt is charged on an indictment that alleges that he person, on the 11 of March 2010, at 28 Malwinas Watered Marcos Mauricio Duran.
It applies that the indictment be dismissed on the basis it not be sufficient to put him on his trial. He ap-
section 867 of the Criminal Procedure Code, provisions
own
Samson & McGrath for
together with one by, West Bay, Grand
is that the evidence lies pursuant to the
30 trial without
31 his right to a
32
33 3. Jordan Manc
34 the murder of
35 acquitted by
36
37 4. It is accept-
38 according to
Ruling On No Case Submission
the benefit of a preliminary enquiry and so the Crown take this application.
Gibson, who had been previously charged and joined of Mr Duran, was ordered to be separately tried and substance Quin sitting without a jury.
nonetheless that the case against the defendant he evidence as it would relate to him.
-Regino v Raziel Jeffers -IND NO.15 OF 2013 (Chief Justice)
Regina committed of
takes no issue with
in this indictment for
subsequently tried and
must be examined
Page 1 of 4 </doc>
<doc> 1 5. The prosecu-
2 a reasonable
3 murder are
4
5 6. For proof of
6 sections 18
7
8 7. Section 18
9
an offence
10 the offence
11
tion accepts that it must of course, be able to adduce jury properly directed could be sure that the element established as prescribed by section 181 of the Penal
of the requisite malice aforethought, the prosecution and 19 of the Penal Code and upon the applicable case
defense person who aids or abets or counsels or proc- to have taken part in the commission of the offence as
evidenc eupon which
ents of the offence of
lode.
places reliance upon
law.
res ulte commission of
and to have committed
12 8. It is in those
13 Duran.
14 Section 19 of
15
16
"W/h
17
purp
18
on of
19
offen
20
21
22 9. Here the pro-
23 Martinez, a
24 time of the
25 that the def-
26 Mr Duran, a
27 have provided capacities that the defendant is alleged to be liable
The Penal Code provides:
on two or more persons form a common intention to lose in conjunction with one another, and in the prosecution is committed of such a nature that it's commiquence of such purpose, each of them is deemed to ce."
osecution's case depends essentially, upon the evidencing woman with whom the defendant was in a close relationship and with whom he had a child. Her evidence vandant admitted to her he was the person who master plan which involved the use of a firearm or firearms and to those whom he recruited to carry out it
for the murder of Mr
prosecute an unlawful
tion was a probable
ssion was a probable
have committed the
ence of Miss Megan
e relationship at the
point he to the effect
minded a plan to rob
which he admitted to
28 prosecution,
29 intentional
30
31 10. I am of the
32 evidence of it
33
34 I. That
35 man"
36
Ruling On No Case Submission
"It follows, says the
conclude that the
ence of the robbery.
he conclude on the
to rob the 'numbers
Page 2 of 4 </doc>
<doc> 1 II. That
2 those
3 "fright
4
5 III. That
6 Way
7 many
8
9
10 IV. That
11 outsie
the defendant admitted to have provided at least one other with a firearm or firearms, which he saidten" the numbers man.
he admitted to being at the apartment of Rita Martinez for the purpose of alerting his accomplices to the ar(Mr Duran) on 11 March 2010; for the purpose of airying
the admitted to telephoning his accomplices, who while the accompanist actually attempted them or
or more than one of
I would be used to
linez at 28 Malwinas
rival of the numbers
ine and abetting the
were laying in ambush
12 and on
13
14 V. That
15 the de
16 the re
17 Eban
Ms M
19
num
20
VI. He ac
21 car or
22 getaw
23 havin
24 recou
25 includ
26 er
27 of his departure from Rita Martinez' apartment.
immediately following the botched robbery and fatal standant fled from Rita Martinez' apartment for fear oflice and hid until he was picked up by Ms Martinez Road near to the scene of the shooting, in a state claritnez that "he did not know yet what had happened man was dead."
mitted to having helped one of his accomplices, Craig, the day after the murder, that which was planned lay off for the robbery, to rid it of any traces of evidence discussed with Craig Johnson, what had happened dunted to Ms Martinez what he claims to have been toleng that Jordan Manderson had gotten into a struggle of the numbers man
or being accosted by
z and her friend on
28
panic. He then told
ended but the poor
Johnson to clean his
or and used as the
ceasing implicitly to
ring the incident. He
about the incident,
a with the numbers
29 man of
30 shot the
31
.
32 11. The forensic
33 and that at le
34 confirms that
35 confirmed that
36
Ruling On No Case Submission
but the gun Manderson was carrying went off shooting at another accomplice named Joshua shot the numbers Austin managed to retrieve the firearm Manderson of numbers man.
evidence in the case shows that Mr Duran was shot last two different firearms were involved. The indepenrdan Manderson sustained a gunshot injury to the left he had bled at the scene.
Regina v Rozel Jeffers - IND NO. 15 of 2011 (Chief Justice)
g Manderson in the
ers man and a third
and dropped and also
it least three times,
dent evidence also
g and DNA evidence
Page 3 of4 </doc>
<doc> 1 12.The indepe-
2 shot and k-
3 time that J-
4 when he to-
5
6 13.On that ev-
7 was respon-
8 also for his
9 planned ro-
10 anewed
indepe-nce in the case shows that the numbers mailed as he left Rita Martinez's apartment on the 11 Meffers is reported by Ms Martinez to have called her old her the shooting had taken place.
defence if accepted as true, a jury could properly consider only for conspiracy to commit the failed robbery on the basis that, viewing the circumstances offence which was the probable consequence of thebery. See R v Stuart 134 CLR 426 where this statement
ran, Marcos Duran was
arch 2010 at about the
in a state of panic and
de that the defendant
betrayed Mr Duran, but
objectively as a whole,
e carrying out of the
nt of the principle was
it of the
12
13 14.In the after-
14 left to the Ju-
15 that he wa-
16 measure a
17 resulted in
18 the intentio-
19 which, becau-
20
21 Ruling delivered in
22
23
24
25
26 The Honourable Ju-
27 c/furr justice
rative on the basis of section 59 of the Criminal Procedure to consider whether the defendant is guilty of mari- a party to an unlawful act, the attempted robbery dangerous act because of the involvement of the
he death of Mr Duran. At the very least, the plan to assault him by scaring him with the firearms and use it involved the use offirearms, was also an inheren-
open court on 5th August 2014
tice Anthony Smellie
jure Code, it could be
brought on the basis
by which was by any
firearms, and which
ob Mr Duran involved
to was an unlawful act
ly dangerous act.
- Regime v Roziel Jeffers - IND NO. 15 of 2011 [Chief Justice]
Page4of4 </doc>