Quin J
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CRIMINAL SIDE INDICTMENT NO: 0016/2012 THE QUEEN V JARRON NOEL CONOLLY Appearances: Mr. Kenneth Ferguson for the Crown Ms. Fiona Robertson of Samson and McGrath for the Defendant Before: The Hon. Mr. Justice Charles Quin Sentencing Submissions Heard: 16th November 2012 SENTENCE RULING
On the 24th September 2012 the Defendant pleaded guilty to Wounding, contrary to s.204 of the Penal Code (2010 Revision).
The particulars of the offence are that the Defendant, on the 24th day of June 2011 at 28 Poplar Street, Bodden Town, Grand Cayman, unlawfully and maliciously wounded Nathaniel Pearson.
The Crown and the Defence presented an agreed Basis of Plea in the following terms: i. That there was an altercation between the Defendant and the Complainant, Nathaniel Pearson; ii. That Nathaniel Pearson had a knife; iii. That the Defendant used a piece of construction rebar to knock the knife from Nathaniel Pearson’s hand; iv. A tussle ensued between the Complainant and the Defendant and the Complainant ran off; v. The Defendant chased after the Complainant and kicked him and the Complainant fell to the ground; vi. The Defendant accepts that he caused injury to the Complainant’s head; vii. The Defendant accepts that although his initial reactions were in self defence, by chasing after the Complainant and kicking him he, the Defendant, was no longer acting in reasonable self defence.
The medical report of Dr. Obinna Eleweaza dated the 16th September 2011 confirms that the Complainant sustained a 3 cm laceration of the forehead and a swollen tender wrist.
Although the Defendant pleaded guilty on the 24th September 2012, the Court accepts that the guilty plea was offered on the 2nd August 2012, which is some eight or nine weeks earlier.
It is accepted that the Defendant was provoked before the incident by false rumours being spread by the Complainant that he, the Complainant, had sex with the Defendant’s girlfriend. Also, it is accepted that the Complainant pulled a knife on the Defendant, and that, in order to defend himself the Defendant used a piece of construction rebar to knock the knife from the Complainant’s hand.
However, in chasing the Complainant and then kicking him, the Defendant accepts that he was acting beyond reasonable self defence. And, as the Defendant stated to the Probation Officer, he went overboard in carrying out what was initially an act of self defence.
The Complainant’s injuries were not described as serious.
The Department of Community Rehabilitation (DCR) arranged for a meeting with the Complainant on Tuesday the 30th October 2012, in order to prepare a Victim Impact Report. The Complainant did not attend that meeting. The Probation Officer assigned to the case attempted to make contact with the Complainant and left a voicemail message. Following on that the Complainant dropped in to the DCR office and said that he had just lost his job and did not feel like having a conversation with the DCR officers. The Complainant was advised to schedule an appointment when he was in a better emotional state. The urgency and importance of the appointment was made clear to the Complainant and he was told that he should ensure that the appointment was made before the 6th November 2012. The Complainant did not re-establish contact with the DCR.
The Court finds that the DCR gave the Complainant ample opportunity to assist the Department in providing a Victim Impact Report, but that he did not take up the several opportunities to give the necessary information for such a report. ANTECEDENTS
The Defendant has one conviction in 2004 for possession and consumption of ganja. The Crown and the Defence agree this ganja conviction is not relevant to the case in question.
I do accept that the Defendant has no previous convictions for violence or for anything other than the single drug incident. Accordingly, I am prepared to treat the Defendant as man with previous good character. DEFENDANT’S REMORSE
The Court has been greatly assisted by the report of Probation Officer, Herbert Tomlinson, dated the 16th November 2012. Mr. Tomlinson confirms that the Defendant is genuinely remorseful and that he takes full responsibility for his behaviour. The Defendant said, "I think my action was stupid because I know that what Nathaniel was telling others about me was not true. I regret the incident ever occurred and I am sorry he got hurt." Mr. Tomlinson confirmed that the Defendant is sorry for the injuries he caused the Complainant and has expressed his willingness to pay compensation and to reimburse the Complainant for medical expenses. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
I note that the Defendant has an excellent work record and has been working for 10 years with Caribbean Utilities Company (CUC). I have also read the references from Messrs. Bramwell and Wood. The Defendant’s employers describe him as an intelligent, capable, dedicated and personable young man.
I note also that Mr. Tomlinson from the DCR assesses that the Defendant is at a one percent risk of reoffending within the next 12 months, and that the Defendant’s overall risk of recidivism was assessed as very low.
As Defence counsel has stated: This offence appears to be totally out of character and one where the Defendant, faced with provocation initially acted in self defence but then overreacted and wounded the Complainant.
I am grateful to both counsel for setting out the UK Sentencing Guidelines of 2011. This offence falls within Category 3, which relates to offences causing lesser harm, and where there is lower culpability.
I accept that there was a significant degree of provocation, and that there was a complete lack of pre-mediation on the part of the Defendant. I accept from the evidence that when the Complainant pulled a knife on the Defendant the Defendant honestly believed it was necessary to use force to defend himself. I find that his use of the piece of rebar to knock the knife out of the Complainant’s hand was, in all the circumstances, perfectly reasonable. However, then to chase after the Complainant and kick him, which consequently resulted in the injuries sustained by the Complainant, constituted unreasonable force.
In light of the Defendant’s guilty plea, his previous good character, and, his genuine remorse, I am prepared to accept the recommendations of the Probation Officer and make the following Order: i. The Defendant is to perform 200 hours of community service. ii. The Defendant is to attend an anger management course conducted by the DCR. iii. The Defendant is to reimburse the Complainant for his reasonable medical expenses related to the injury sustained in this incident, upon the Complainant providing documented proof of the costs to the RCIPS officer in this case – PC Rafael William. Dated this the 26th day of November 2012 Honourable Mr. Justice Charles Quin Judge of the Grand Court