R v Matio Dinnall

¶ <doc> IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE CAYMAN IS CICA (CA) Previously Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2005 & CICA app (Indic The Right Hon Sir John Chadwick, President The Hon Elliott Mottley, Justice of Appeal The Right Hon Anthony Campbell, Justice of Appeal FROM THE GRAND COURT LANDS CR) 008/2013 Lication 017/2012 (Ind 38/05) C 1291/05 (Ind 38/05) BETWEEN Fiona Robertson Tanya Lobban- Crown. HM THE QUEEN -and- MATIO DINNALL In of Samson & McGrath appeared for the Appellant, Matio Jackson instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions a Hearing: 30 July 2013 JUDGMENT Revised from transcript and Approved Respondent Appellant to Dinnall appeared for the Sir John Chad-

¶ [1] On 23 without offence, ammuni- Released 16 January 2014 wick, President: November 2005, Matio Dinnall was convicted by judge a jury, of possession of an unlicensed firearm with inter (Count 1) and with possession of an unlicensed cription, (Count 3). He was sentenced to 15 years impris- </doc>
<doc> year min- Section minimum sentence for offences involving possession of unlicensed firearms. 18(6) of the earlier law was replaced by a section in these Whoever has with him a firearm or imitation firearm commit an offence, to resist arrest or to prevent the person, in either case while he has the firearm or imitation, is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction - (a) where the offence is in respect of a firearm, imprisonment for twenty years, subject to a min- (b) where the offence is in respect of any other firear- mensed firearms. terms: with intent to rest of another on firearm with refusal to in definite and to minimum term of in or any bullet- Those in Law 2008, the effec- tive conviction section time whi- to have retrospec- proof vest, to a fine of one hundred thousand imprisonment for twenty years.” provisions have to be read with section 21(2) in the Firearms Where on or after the date of commencement of this Law is guilty of or pleads guilty to an offence (irrespective ifence was committed), the accused person shall, for judgment or sentence in respect of the offence, be dealt with the new Law and the provisions of the new Law accordingly.” act of that section was to introduce the minimum 10-y- on for an offence in respect of a firearm within sub- 18(6) of the earlier Law (as amended) with retrospective of en law. If Dinnall was sentenced in December 2005, the jud- retrogard to the minimum sentence of 10 years which had be- dollars and to tively by the 2005 Law. (Amendment) law, an accused ve of when the the purpose of in all respects w are to apply ar sentence on paragraph (a) of firearm, at the ge words required een introduced

¶ [6] A furth- (Another providing guilty of 15 Novel machine bullet or individual change to the law was made by the enactment of amendment) Law 2008. Sections 6, 7 and 8 of that Law state that where (i) an individual was convicted following an an offence under s18(6) and (ii) the offence was com- member 2005, and (iii) the offence was in respect of a ma- gun, shotgun, pistol or any lethal barreled weapon from other missile could be discharged, then the court, in a al pleaded guilty, was to impose a sentence of imprison- the Firearms and the effect of trial or plea of tted on or after nine gun, sub- which a shot, ease where the ent for at least </doc>
<doc> and that commit- is a case sentence. Law did

¶ [8] Neverth- principle the old in March 2005. On a proper understanding of Manahan, where the judge was correct to have regard to the IO at the time when he sentenced Mr. Dinnall in December not affect the position.

¶ [9] For the based on circumstances, point.

¶ [10] It is imp- in December 2005. The maximum sentence under the old law. Albeit that the judge was bound to impo- sition of 10 years - because that is required by a senten- it is said that the application of the retrospective am- adopt a starting point which was too high; given the circum- the defendant's personal mitigation. reasons which I have indicated, it seems to us that that a misunderstanding of what this Court decided in Mana- ances which give rise to this appeal, it is unnecessary for us ortain to keep in mind that the appellant appealed to the Court 2007 against both conviction and sentence. As I have said, convicti- or against conviction was dismissed; and the appeal against once was twenty use a retrospective amendment led the instances of the submission is non. But, in the is to decide that Court of Appeal should not have said, the the sentence of 15 years appeal or sentencing mandate inferred sentence of the or unless we on Count I, possession of a relevant firearm, was also a Count 3 - that is, possession of the ammunition- was re- not that count was reduced to five years. No doubt that v ry minimum sentence did not apply to that type of offi- that, insofar as the judge thought he was constrained to p- cence under Count 3, the Court of Appeal held that he wa- of 10 years pursuant to the Firearms (Amendment) Law. are satisfied that the judge took account of the 10- dismissed. The allowed; and the case because the nce. It can be ass a minimum 2005 in respect s in error. But, ear mandatory </doc>
<doc> have this child, ndant on you. I he scale. In the we take into to take into the society at an equal level of arters it says it of what we are and have been 13.I have r the judge to us gr Court of judge's influence in a society calls for the discouraging of such practices in very other Caribbean country. I have to take that into account when I balance the scales. So when I look at all the circumstances, it that you are quite fortunate because you could have much more serious offence and the consequences would be severe. a striking a balance I think that an appropriate sentence ount I is that you be imprisoned for a period of 15 years.” had that passage in full, not because we are entertaining are’s reasoning under the general law - that, as I have explain- even that an appeal against sentence has already been de- Again in 2007 – but, rather, in order to show that there is sentencing remarks to suggest that, in relation to Count II ed by the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence. By con- be discouraged this island and sideration when I would say to been here on a have been much be in relation to appeal against led, is not open smised by the misuse in the the judge was rast, he plainly has no offence this. And he

¶ [14] Had the by the C the retro- fected by the 10 year mandatory minimum sentence under Count 3 (possession of ammunition), in relation to relation to Count [3], that you be imprisoned for a minimum years, which is the minimum I can impose.” directed the sentences run concurrently. sentence imposed in respect of the offence under Count 3 - Court of Appeal in 2007 - and reduced to five years - the qu- respective provisions introduced by the 2005 Law were ap- relation to the which he said plicable in the </doc>