Quin J
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CRIMINAL SIDE INDICTMENT NO: 0047B/12 THE QUEEN V ARRON MARQUISS MCLAUGHLIN Appearances: Ms. Candia James for the Crown Mr. Clyde Allen for the Defendant Before: The Hon. Mr. Justice Charles Quin Submissions heard: 19th November 2013 SENTENCE RULING
On the 25th September 2013 the Defendant, Arron Marquiss McLaughlin, pleaded guilty to Counts 1, 2, and 4 on Indictment 47B of 2012. The DPP has accepted these pleas and has therefore advised that Count 3 can be left on file.
Count 1 is a charge of Robbery contrary to s.242 of the Penal Code. The particulars of that offence are that the Defendant, on the 30th May 2012, at Cash Wiz, #281 Bodden Town Road, Bodden Town, Grand Cayman, stole CI$612.00 and a gold ring from Lianne MacDonald, and immediately at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, put the said Lianne MacDonald in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
Count 2 is a charge of Possession of an Imitation Firearm with Intent contrary to s.18(6) of the Firearms Law (2008 Revision). The particulars of the offence are that the Defendant, on the 30th May 2012, at Cash Wiz, #281 Bodden Town Road, Bodden Town, Grand Cayman, had in his possession an imitation firearm with intent to commit an offence, namely, robbery.
Count 4 is a charge of Common Assault contrary to s.215 of the Penal Code (2010 Revision). The particulars of the offence are that the Defendant, on the 30th day of May 2012, at Griffin [Manor] Apartment Complex, Griffin Street, Bodden Town, Grand Cayman, assaulted DC Manley Berry. SUMMARY OF FACTS
Crown counsel presented that, on the 30th May 2012 a man wearing a black mask with a scull print, and carrying what appeared to be a black handgun and black bag, entered the Cash Wiz on Bodden Town Road. The man, later identified as the Defendant, ordered one employee, Rayvon Rankine, onto the floor and then pointed the gun at the manager, Lianne MacDonald, demanding that she open the safe. Ms. MacDonald opened the cash drawer and took out CI$612.00, which she placed into a bag, handed to her by the Defendant.
The Defendant demanded some other items and was given some other items, including a gold ring. The Defendant left the Cash Wiz store leaving behind the other items and taking the money and the ring.
As soon as the Defendant left the store the manager telephoned the police and reported the robbery. The two police officers who responded to the scene were told that the robber ran in the direction of a pathway leading to Leroy Fredrick Drive, following which they made checks on that Drive and came upon the Defendant walking along. The police drove alongside him and ordered him to stop, saying that they wanted to speak to him. The Defendant continued walking and the police officer stopped the vehicle. As the police officers exited the vehicle the Defendant took off running towards Persia Way. DC Berry gave chase, whilst continuing to shout at the Defendant to stop and drop the bag. The Defendant actually entered the parking lot of an apartment complex. The Defendant stop running and pulled what appeared to be a black long-barrelled handgun out of the bag and pointed it at DC Berry whilst repeating, "I will shoot you, I will shoot you." The Defendant continued to advance upon DC Berry who retreated with his arms upraised, begging the man not to shoot. DC Berry asserts that he heard a clicking sound coming from what he believed was a handgun.
Meanwhile a police helicopter began approaching the scene and the Defendant walked away and threw the gun into a flower patch. WDC Barboram, then ran towards the man, who threw the bag towards a fence and started running. WDC Barboram then jumped on him and wrestled him and wrestled him to the ground, where he was eventually restrained and arrested.
The Defendant identified himself as Arron McLaughlin and the following items were retrieved from him: (a) A black mask with the word 'skull' (b) A pair of blue jeans (c) One black glove (d) One red glove (e) CI$580.00 (f) A gold ring and pendant
The gun was also retrieved and examined by ballistic expert, Alan Greenspan, who found that the gun was actually an Orion Flare Gun which had been modified to accept the calibre 12 gauge shot shell by the insertion of a piece of metal tube into the chamber of the signaling device. However, Mr. Greenspan also found that the gun would likely suffer catastrophic failure, in that, it would blow up or explode if it were to discharge conventional ammunition. Accordingly, Mr. Greenspan said that the resulting projectile would be unlikely to cause death or serious injury. It is for this reason that the gun is being treated as an imitation firearm, rather than a firearm within meaning of the Firearms Law (2008 Revision).
The items retrieved from the Defendant were exhibited and sent for examination and analysis and the Defendant's DNA was found on the black mask with the following match ratio to the Defendant's DNA – 1 in 400 trillion. That is, the chance that an unrelated person from the general population could be included as a contributor to the DNA profile recovered is 1 in approximately every 400 trillion individuals.
The Defendant was interviewed under caution on Friday the 1st June 2012 in the presence of his lawyer and on all three occasions on which the Defendant was interviewed he gave "no-comment" responses. ANALYSIS
It appears that the experts were initially of the view that the modified Flare Gun was capable of causing death or serious injury, but are now not of that view and, accordingly, the Crown has accepted that the firearm in question can be classified as an imitation firearm.
Although the Defendant pleaded not guilty to these three counts on the 6th July 2012, Defence counsel highlights the fact that the Defendant changed his plea after an agreement between the Crown and the Defence that the firearm was an imitation firearm. Accordingly, Defence counsel asks the Court to grant the Defendant the full benefit of a one-third discount.
Defence counsel submits that the Defendant is very sorry and contrite for the offence he committed and asks the Court for leniency. Defence counsel informs the Court that the Defendant is the father of two young children and that imprisonment will cause significant hardship to him and his young family.
It is clear from the SIR that the Defendant was raised in a good home. Unfortunately his parents separated when he was approximately 9 years of age. However, both his parents held senior positions in the Department of Education and his father is currently a pastor of the Countryside Church of God. His parents, though separated, continued to be excellent role models for this Defendant and continued to teach him firm Christian values.
The Defendant attended Red Bay Primary, George Hicks Middle and John Gray High Schools. The Defendant was Valedictorian upon graduation from his primary school and he won the Thomas Russell award at George Hicks Middle School for the highest achieving male in the class. The Defendant attained passes in ten CSE classes and was awarded a Cayman Islands Government Scholarship to pursue an Associate Degree in Business at the University College of the Cayman Islands.
The Defendant has been employed – working as a Teachers’ Aide at Prospect Primary School and taught Physical Education alongside coaches. The reference from Dr. Philip Palmer stated that although the Defendant’s time keeping was poor, he was very pleased with the quality and volume of the Defendant’s work in the Data Services Department. Mr. Philip Jackson of the Department of Education said he always found the Defendant to be a bright young man of good character. Mr. Jackson describes the Defendant as respectful and possessing a lot of potential to succeed at any task he set his sights on. In addition to being a student who excelled academically, the Defendant was an excellent sportsman – representing the Cayman Islands in track and field events and playing football for the “Bodden Town 11”.
The Defendant exhibited all the early signs of becoming a productive and successful adult. However, the Defendant’s father said he noticed that the Defendant began using ganja some six or seven months before this offence was committed. Furthermore there is evidence from the report that the Defendant started associating with persons who used drugs, and he, himself, began using cocaine shortly before this offence occurred.
In my view there is a clear indication that the Defendant’s use of ganja and cocaine and associating with people supplying illegal drugs has led him into criminal activity. I also take note of the fact that the Defendant had been shot just before this offence, and there is evidence to suggest that he committed the offence in order to honour his debt to persons who were pursuing him for payment for drugs supplied to him.
It is nothing short of tragic to see such a talented young man falling victim to the influence of criminal associates, getting involved with the use of illegal drugs, and now committing these serious criminal offences of robbery, possession of an imitation firearm and assault on a police officer.
The maximum sentence for the offence of robbery is life imprisonment. The maximum sentence for possession of an imitation firearm is 20 years and a fine of $100,000.00. And the maximum sentence for common assault is one year.
When one looks at the offences to which the Defendant has pleaded guilty, they all warrant a significant custodial sentence. The UK Sentencing Guidelines Council stated: "It is the element of violence that is the most serious part of the offence of robbery, but it is not the only determining factor. The relative seriousness of each offence depends on factors such as the degree of injury to the victim or the nature and the duration of the threats. The degree of force used is important in determining the seriousness of the offence but the degree of fear which is experienced by the victim is a relevant consideration."
I find that Count 1 come within level 2 of the United Kingdom Sentencing Guidelines because a weapon was produced and used to threaten the employees of Cash Wiz. This Court noted in the case of R v. Josh Alexander Bodden Indictment 68 of 2010 dated the 22nd December 2010, "The Court accepts that the Defendant used an imitation gun, but, at the same time, notes that this is a very serious offence, and one which put the Complainant in considerable fear for his life."
Also the Sentencing Guidelines Council state: "Whether the firearm is real or an imitation is not a major factor in determining the appropriate sentence because the amount of fear created in the victim is likely to be the same."
There is evidence before this Court that some planning went into this offence owing to the fact that the Defendant wore a black mask and, in addition to the imitation firearm, carried a black bag, in order to transport his takings. The photograph of the imitation firearm demonstrates that it looked like a real firearm and therefore must have caused the employees in the shop considerable terror and fear.
The Defendant was 20 years of age at the time of the offence and is classified as an adult offender. The starting point under the Sentencing Guidelines Council – which has been adopted by both the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal and the Grand Court – is 4 years in custody, and the sentencing range is two years to seven years, depending on the number of aggravating and mitigating factors.
The President of the CICA, Sir John Chadwick, stated at paragraph 11 in the case of *R v. Haylock, Avilla, McLaughlin and Watson* CICA (Crim) No. 33 of 2010: "Nevertheless those who arm themselves with weapons and undertake pre-meditated robbery of small commercial businesses in these islands must expect at least five years' imprisonment if they are convicted."
Both Crown counsel and Defence counsel accept that this is a level 2 offence, for which the starting point is 4 years' custody in relation to a Defendant who pleads not guilty and has no previous convictions. Bearing in mind the Guidelines and the Court of Appeal decision in *R v. Haylock, Avilla, McLaughlin and Watson (supra)* I find that, with the aggravating features of this case, the starting point has to be 5 years imprisonment.
However, as the Defendant pleaded guilty I am prepared to reduce his sentence by 20 percent, due to the delay in his guilty pleas to Count 1 and Count 4, and I therefore impose a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment for Count 1.
In relation to Count 2 I take into account that, for the robbery, he used an imitation firearm and, accordingly, I impose a sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment to run concurrent with the four years on Count 1.
I come now to deal with the offence of assault against a police officer.
To have a firearm, whether imitation or real, pointed at you, with the robber shouting “I will shoot you, I will shoot you,” must have been a terrifying experience for DC Berry.
The maximum sentence for this offence is 12 months’ imprisonment. In light of the Defendant’s guilty plea and his young age, I will impose a sentence of six months’ imprisonment, to run consecutively with the four years’ imprisonment for Count 1.
Time spent in custody is to be deducted from the total sentence imposed for Counts 1, 2, and 4.
I publicly record the community’s appreciation for the bravery of DC Berry and WDC Barboram. They acted quickly and with considerable courage in apprehending an armed robber and bringing him to justice.
I conclude by strongly recommending to the Defendant that he continues with his education whilst he is in HMPS Northward. He had six courses remaining to complete his degree and he must immediately enroll in programmes that will lead to the completion of these courses and to sit the necessary exams in Northward or as soon as he is released from custody.
Mr. McLaughlin, on the evidence before me, you are a young man with considerable potential. If you stay away from illegal drugs and criminals you can fulfill that potential. It is up to you. Dated this the 3rd day of December 2013 Honourable Mr. Justice Charles Quin Judge of the Grand Court