R v George D Evans - Judgment

¶ IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CRIMINAL SIDE INDICTMENT NO: 18/11 THE QUEEN V GEORGE DEXTER EVANS Appearances: Mr. Trevor Ward, Senior Crown Counsel, for the Crown Mr. John Furniss for the Defendant Before: The Hon. Mr. Justice Charles Quin Heard: 1st, 2nd and 3rd August 2011 JUDGMENT Introduction

¶ [1] In the case before this Court the Defendant, George Dexter Evans, is charged with two Counts namely, Count 1 – Attempted Murder, contrary to s.194 of the Penal Code Law, (2010 Revision). The particulars of this Count are that the Defendant, on the 12th day of December 2010, at Plantation Village Beach Resorts ("Plantation Village"), West Bay Road, Grand Cayman, unlawfully attempted to kill Mrs. Maritza Evans ("Mrs. Evans").

¶ [2] The Defendant is charged with one Count of Arson contrary to s.267(2) of the Penal Code Law (2010 Revision). The particulars are that the Defendant, on the 12th day of December 2010, at Plantation Village, West Bay Road,
Grand Cayman, without lawful excuse, damaged by fire property belonging to Plantation Village, intending to damage or being reckless as to whether the property would be damaged, and intending by the said damage to endanger the life of Mrs. Evans. The Defendant has pleaded not guilty to Counts 1 and 2. Case for the Prosecution

¶ [3] The Crown relied on six witnesses, four exhibits and formal admissions read in, pursuant to s.34 of the Evidence Law (2007 Revision). Mrs. Maritza Evans ("Mrs. Evans") – the Complainant

¶ [4] Mrs. Evans is the wife of the Defendant by whom she has one child, who is now 10 years old. Mrs. Evans and the Defendant were married on the 26th June 2007 and lived together at Bush Street in West Bay.

¶ [5] Mrs. Evans said that on the 15th November 2010 she rented an apartment in the area of Pappagallo (the "Pappagallo apartment"). She said she rented the apartment because her husband was drinking a lot and she would get scared when he drinks, because he would become violent.

¶ [6] It was clear from Mrs. Evans's evidence that the Defendant was also very jealous as she said the Defendant would torment her – accusing her of infidelity. Mrs. Evans said the Defendant said: "People like you shouldn't be alive, you know."

¶ [7] However, Mrs. Evans said she tried to keep living at the matrimonial home because their little boy wanted to be with his Daddy. Mrs. Evans also tried to
maintain a presence at the matrimonial home because she loved the Defendant and hoped that he would change his lifestyle.

¶ [8] On the evening of the 11th December 2010 Mrs. Evans said that she had been off work and her husband was constantly calling her. She said she went out to bring him home some food. She said that whilst at the matrimonial home with him she saw him go into a kitchen for a fork and he picked up a knife which he then put down. Although he did not do anything she got scared. She recalls that when he sat down at the table and he: "Start telling me things. He even say [that] If it is the last thing he do he will close down Plantation Village."

¶ [9] Mrs. Evans told to the Court: "I know he was going wild bad. He was like outraged then. I know the type of person he is when he gets outraged. His eyes get flaky, like when he's vexed, so I get scared..."

¶ [10] Because of this, Mrs. Evans said she told the Defendant that she needed to get some "dish liquid" and she managed to get out of the Bush Street residence with her little boy.

¶ [11] Mrs. Evans said she went to the Pappagallo apartment and her husband kept calling her through the night and telling her to bring the keys for the Bush Street house to him. Mrs. Evans said she eventually left the keys at the police station.

¶ [12] Mrs. Evans said that on the morning of the 12th December 2010 she reported for work at Plantation Village at around 9 a.m. Whilst in the laundry area she
kept receiving calls from the office reception area, so she went to that area where she saw the Defendant standing in front of the counter. She said that the Defendant said to her: "Come here I have something good for you." Mrs. Evans said that Mrs. Lisa Claudette Seymour ("Mrs. Seymour") and Ms. Chiara Ordonez ("Ms. Ordonez") were present when the Defendant said this.

¶ [13] Mrs. Evans said she followed the Defendant to the front door of the reception area that led outside. She said the Defendant went to his truck, which was parked in the portico area outside, and he took a bottle of H7 out of it. Mrs. Evans said she was just about to open the door to go outside when she saw him coming towards the door with the H7 bottle, so she decided to step back into the building. When asked why she did that, she said because she didn’t know what was in the bottle. She said after she closed the door the Defendant: "...just grabbed the door quickly and he keep shoving his hand through the door and spraying it [the contents of the bottle] on me."

¶ [14] Mrs. Evans said the liquid he was spraying on her smelled like gasoline, although it smelled like it had something else in it. Mrs. Evans said the liquid: "It ... hit my face [and] it ...were burning my face and my eyes too were burning."

¶ [15] Mrs. Evans said she then struggled to try and close the door while the Defendant was trying to open the door and she called for help from Mrs. Seymour. Mrs. Evans said, "I keep saying to Lisa, Lisa, please, come help me close this door 'cause I don't know what he's spraying on me."

¶ [16] Mrs. Evans said that when she, with Mrs. Seymour’s assistance, was able to close the door, she saw the Defendant spray the liquid on the door and then he lit it and it went into a flame.

¶ [17] Mrs. Evans said the next thing she knew was that the Defendant went to his truck and drove the truck into the glass door of the reception area. Mrs. Evans said the truck went flying into the glass and bored a hole in the glass.

¶ [18] Mrs. Evans said the Defendant got out of the truck and got a bottle from the back of the truck. The bottle used to be red, but was burned brown by the sun, and it was about a foot in height, and it contained gasoline. Mrs. Evans said the Defendant threw the gasoline through the hole in the door – the hole that the truck had bored –: "and he let all the gas out from there [and] the gas all was coming out inside the building." She described this by using a pouring motion. She said she next saw him throw something, even though she could not see exactly what it was, and then "...all of a sudden I see like fire, you know, the blaze."

¶ [19] Mrs. Evans said she did not recall how the Defendant lit the place afire, and she did not know whether it was a lighter, but the place just started to burn just after he poured the gas. She said the counter was the first place to be set ablaze.

¶ [20] Mrs. Evans said she felt her life was in danger and indeed the lives of others. Mrs. Evans said she tried to get the fire extinguisher to put out the fire but the fire extinguisher would not work. Mrs. Evans said she went to the back door and pulled down a fire alarm and then she ran into a guest unit because she was so scared.

¶ [21] In cross examination Mrs. Evans said the Defendant was pulling the bar of the door from the outside, and she was trying to close the door on the inside. She said she did not have enough strength so she called Mrs. Seymour to help her close the door. She said the Defendant was stronger than her and he had enough power to keep putting the nozzle of the bottle at the door and spraying the bottle, while at the same time trying to open the door to spray the bottle.

¶ [22] In cross examination Mrs. Evans told the Court that she felt that the Defendant had been drinking. She said he did not ask her to come outside to talk, he said, "Come I got something good for you."

¶ [23] Under cross examination she also said that he did not say anything when he was pulling the door and spraying the gasoline on her.

¶ [24] Under cross examination Mrs. Evans recalled that when they were both going towards the front door of the reception area she said,
“Georgie, please this is my workplace. Just leave the workplace. This is my workplace. Don’t come here ...” Mrs. Lisa Claudette Seymour ("Mr. Seymour")

¶ [25] Mrs. Seymour is the office manager for Plantation Village. She recalled the 12th December 2010 when she came to work at around 9:30 a.m. She said she walked the premises and came back into her office whereupon she saw the Defendant entering Plantation Village. She said the Defendant came to the front office and she noticed that he was carrying a machete in his hand. She said that she advised the Defendant to leave the premises and he left the premises in his red Ford Ranger truck.

¶ [26] She said the Defendant returned to the premises sometime after 10 a.m. in a calm state. Mrs. Seymour said she tried to call the Defendant’s wife, Mrs. Evans, who then came into the reception area. She next heard the Defendant say to Mrs. Evans, “Come here I got something for you.”

¶ [27] The next thing the witness saw was Mrs. Evans and the Defendant tugging at the door and she heard Mrs. Evans scream, “Georgie just throwing H7 on me.”

¶ [28] Mrs. Seymour said Mrs. Evans was on the inside and he, the Defendant, was trying to spray the gasoline at her through the scam of the door and she noticed that he was spraying from an H7 bottle.

¶ [29] Mrs. Seymour said after she and Mrs. Evans got the door closed the Defendant continued to spray the glass of the door and he lit it with a green cigarette lighter.

¶ [30] Mrs. Seymour then saw the Defendant get into his red Ford Ranger truck, reverse to towards the back of the building, rev it up and then drive it into the front of Mrs. Evans’s car.

¶ [31] Mrs. Seymour then saw the Defendant get a red gasoline can out. Mrs. Seymour said, “George, what are you doing this blessed Sunday morning?”

¶ [32] Mrs. Seymour said “he looked at me” and she jumped back inside and the Defendant got out of the truck with a red gasoline bottle and she said: “He started to like pelt gasoline over the place. He light the tip of the gasoline bottle and throwed it into the front door of the premises and the nightmare started then.”

¶ [33] Mrs. Seymour said the “black huge smoke just blaired (sic) up.”

¶ [34] Mrs. Seymour said she managed to get a fire extinguisher working. It emitted some foam but not enough, so she went around the building to try and get the guests to bring fire extinguishers.

¶ [35] She then saw the Defendant standing outside and she said, “Georgie, this is what you want. This is what you gonna get. You gonna rotten in hell for this one.”
35. The witness said the Defendant was shouting with his hands up in the air and still in a rage, "I am George Evans. I did it. I did it."

¶ [36] Mrs. Seymour said she was very concerned because there were two propane cylinders on the premises and the truck was still there and she thought something very devastating would happen if the truck exploded. She said that fortunately six guys came and pulled the truck away from the building. She said with the fire extinguishers and the assistance of guests and workers, they got the fire under control.

¶ [37] Under cross examination Mrs. Seymour said that when she and Mrs. Evans were trying to close the door the Defendant was tugging from outside to spray Mrs. Evans on the inside, and he kept trying to use the nozzle of the H7 bottle to continue spraying.

¶ [38] Under cross examination it was put to Mrs. Seymour that the Defendant never had a machete and she replied clearly that he did come to the premises with a machete. She added that when he returned the second time he was calm with a smile on his face and she, Mrs. Seymour, thought that the Defendant had been upset but that he had calmed down.

¶ [39] Mrs. Seymour said that she thought it was gasoline coming out of the H7 bottle and not H7.

¶ [40] Mrs. Seymour said that after the Defendant had hit Mrs. Evans’s car, he kept looking at Mrs. Seymour. She said she, Mrs. Seymour, told him to leave the premises, but he just kept looking at her:
“...with that evil look and he got back into the truck and this is when I jumped back in the door again when I see him driving towards the building, that he was in such a rage.” Ms. Chiara Ordonez ("Ms. Ordonez")

¶ [41] Ms. Ordonez gave a statement on the 12th December 2010. She said that she heard the Defendant saying “Is Maritza here” and then Mrs. Evans came from the laundry area to him. Ms. Ordonez then saw the Defendant take a bottle of H7 from his truck outside and use it to begin spraying the front door of the office when Mrs. Evans was “desperately” trying to keep the door shut.

¶ [42] Ms. Ordonez said she rang 911. She said she saw the door “catch fire” after the Defendant sprayed the door. She then saw the Defendant crash his truck into the office door and he went to the back of the truck and brought a red petrol can which he poured all around the front door, and then she saw it burst into flames.

¶ [43] Ms. Ordonez said she was absolutely terrified and felt that her life was in great danger. Mr. Philip Coley ("Mr. Coley")

¶ [44] Mr. Coley gave a statement on the 13th December 2010. He saw a red truck being driven deliberately into the front doors of the office at Plantation Village. He then saw a male get out of the vehicle and he saw the male throw something into the office and then, immediately, there were flames inside the
building. Mr. Coley then said he saw the male walk to the rear of the truck and then he just stood around. Mr. Lasse Tuononen

¶ [45] Mr. Tuononen was a guest at Plantation Village at the time of the incident. At about 10 a.m. he “heard a loud bang” and then another, and then he saw the red Ford truck with its front corner “buried into the front doors of the reception” area at Plantation Village. He then saw a male standing by the doors of the reception area. The male next made his way to the driver’s door of the truck and leaned into the truck. After this, he stepped back and went to the door of the reception area, stooped down, leaned forward “with one hand then the whole front of reception burst into flame.” Mr. Tuononen said that after this the male just “aimlessly stood around with his hands on his hips.” Detective Constable Daniel Spence

¶ [46] Detective Constable Spence received a report via 911 at approximately 10:15 a.m. He went to Plantation Village and on approaching he could see “there was much smoke.” At the scene he said he saw “a large fire coming from the doorway of the sales office doors” and he also saw the Defendant George Evans in the car park.

¶ [47] Detective Spence said the Defendant seemed to be under the influence of alcohol because his speech was slurred, his eyes were glazed and he appeared to be unsteady on his feet.

¶ [48] Detective Spence arrested the Defendant and cautioned him. He recalled that the Defendant said that he had been drinking alcohol and that he was guilty of that.

¶ [49] Detective Spence recalled seeing the red XLT Ford Ranger truck. Inside the truck he saw an H7 bottle, a can of WD40 and some beer and liquor bottles. Exhibits

¶ [50] The Crown introduced Exhibit 4 which was a Laboratory Report dated the 22nd December 2010 from Forensic and Scientific Testing Inc. in Lawrenceville, Georgia, U.S.A. A forensic chemist, namely Douglas Baron, certified that the sample of the substance taken from the H7 bottle contained gasoline.

¶ [51] The Crown closed its case with formal agreed admissions affirming that the report of the Cayman Islands Fire Service was admitted and further that the damage caused to the Plantation Village property as a result of the fire amounted to US$200,000.00. Summary of the Case for the Prosecution

¶ [52] The Crown submits that the Defendant demonstrated an intention to kill his wife, Mrs. Evans. The Crown relies on the fact that as far back as November 2010 he said, "Women like you should not be alive," when accusing her of infidelity. The Crown further submits that the Complainant did not view this as an idle threat and actually rented an apartment to which she could retreat with her young child. The Crown also relies on the fact that these accusations of infidelity continued, and on the night before the incident the Defendant
threatened to “close down Plantation Village”, both at dinner and during a telephone call.

¶ [53] On the morning of the 12th December 2010 the Defendant came to Plantation Village with a machete and the Crown submits that he was not on a peaceful mission, given his threats and statements from the previous night. When told to leave by Mrs. Seymour, the Defendant adopted a deceptive ploy and returned to lure his wife outside the premises, not because he had something good for her, but because he wanted to spray her with gasoline.

¶ [54] The Crown submits that the struggle between the wife and the Defendant, in which the Defendant tried to keep the door open in order to spray his wife with gasoline from the H7 bottle, together with the pouring of gasoline onto the floor of the area in which the wife was standing, and the lighting of that gasoline, demonstrates an intent to kill the wife, Mrs. Evans.

¶ [55] The Crown submits that this intention was not limited to causing Mrs. Evans grievous bodily harm, but it demonstrates a clear intention to kill.

¶ [56] The Crown relies on s.318(1) of the Penal Code Law which reads: “When a person intending to commit an offence begins to put his intention into execution by means adapted to its fulfillment, and manifests his intention by some overt act but does not fulfill his intention to such an extent as to commit the offence, he is deemed to attempt to commit the offence.”

¶ [57] The Crown submits that the Defendant first arrived at Plantation Village on the 12th December 2010 with a machete. As result of Mrs. Seymour’s prompt and firm action he left the scene. However he returned some 30 minutes later in a cool and calm manner. He invited the Mrs. Evans outside because he had
“something good” to show her. The “something good” was the spraying of gasoline from the H7 bottle on the Complainant – hitting her face and her eyes. The Crown submits that this shows an intention to kill Mrs. Evans. The Crown submits that the Defendant manifested his intention by these acts, even though he was not able to fulfill his intention to commit the offence of murder because of the alertness and quick action of Mrs. Evans, and the responsiveness and equally quick action of Mrs. Seymour.

¶ [58] The Crown submits that it was only when the effort to continue spraying his wife with gasoline was thwarted that the Defendant then returned to his vehicle, crashed into his wife’s car to render her vehicle inoperable, then proceeded to crash his truck into the reception area, and, in pouring the gasoline into the reception area and lighting it, the Crown submits that the Defendant, again, tried to carry out his intention to kill by burning the premises with his wife inside.

¶ [59] In addition, the Crown submits that even if the Defendant were intoxicated, the intoxication was voluntary, and it would still be possible to intend to kill even whilst under the influence of alcohol. The Crown submits that the issue of intoxication does not negate the specific intent to kill the Complainant.

¶ [60] In addition the Crown submits that the Defendant caused damage to Plantation Village, and intended by the said damage to endanger the life of Mrs. Evans. The Crown submits that the actus reus is the Defendant pouring the petrol into the premises and setting it alight – having earlier tried to spray the Defendant with gasoline from the H7 bottle. Again, the Crown submits
that this demonstrated a clear intention to cause the resulting damage and an intention to endanger the life of Mrs. Evans. Case for the Defence

¶ [61] The Defendant elected not to go into the witness box and give evidence. The Defendant relies on his not guilty pleas to Counts 1 and 2.

¶ [62] I must remind myself that the fact that the Defendant has decided to exercise his right to remain silent, and thereby, not to subject his testimony to testing under cross examination from the prosecution, is not, in and of itself, an indication of the Defendant’s guilt. I remind myself that the Defence does not have to prove the Defendant’s innocence. It is for the prosecution to prove the Defendant’s guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶ [63] The Defence submits that the Crown has not demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that the Defendant intended to kill Mrs. Evans, or further, that he intended to endanger her life.

¶ [64] The Defence submits that the threat “women like you should not be alive” was more of a general statement – expressing the Defendant’s view on infidelity and it does not demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that he had formed an intention to kill.

¶ [65] The Defence submits that the more pertinent threat was to “close down Plantation Village”, and that does not equate to an expressed intention to kill the Complainant, nor even to endanger her life.

¶ [66] In conclusion the Defence says that the Crown has not presented sufficient evidence to make the Court sure beyond all reasonable doubt that he intended to kill Mrs. Evans. Further, the Defence says there is insufficient evidence to make the Court sure beyond all reasonable doubt that he intended to endanger the life of Mrs. Evans. The Law

¶ [67] The Defendant elected to be tried by a Judge Alone, rather than a Judge and Jury, pursuant to s.129 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Cayman Islands.

¶ [68] Our Court of Appeal first dealt with the duties of a Judge in Judge Alone trials in its judgment in K. Richards v. R 2001 CILR 496 when Justice Rowe stated: "When a trial judge sitting alone has advised himself to the applicable principles of law, and given himself any necessary warning, he must indicate clearly in his judgment his reasons for acting as he did, in order to demonstrate that he has acted with the requisite degree of caution in mind and has therefore heeded his own warning. No specific form of words is necessary for this demonstration, what is necessary is that the Judge's mind upon the matter should be clearly revealed."

¶ [69] In R. v. Dave Kennedy Whittaker Cr. App. R. No. 14 of 2006, the Court of Appeal gave some guidelines regarding the duties of a Judge in Judge Alone trials. In the Judgment of Mottley J.A. he adopted the Judgment of the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland Lord Lowry in R v. Thompson [1977] NI 74 in which he stated at page 83:
"While on the subject I might say a word on the duty of the judge when giving judgment in a trial under the 1973 Act. He has no jury to charge and therefore will not err if he does not state every legal proposition and review every fact and argument on either side. His duty is not as in a jury trial to instruct laymen as to every relevant aspect of the law or to give a full and balanced picture of the facts for decision by others. His task is to reach conclusions and to give reasons to support his view and, preferably, to notice any difficult or unusual points of law in order that if there is an Appeal, it may be seen how his view of the law informed his approach to the facts."

¶ [70] More recently our Court of Appeal in Randy Martin v. R Crim. App. R. 2 of 2010 delivered their reasons for dismissing the Appeal on the 7th December 2010. Mottley J.A. again adopting R v. Thompson [1977] NI 24 also adopted R v. Thain [1985] NI 457 where Lowry LCJ said at page 478: "Where the trial is conducted and the factual conclusions are reached by the same person, one need not expect every step in the reasoning to be spelled out expressly, nor is the reasoning carried out in sealed compartments with no inter-communication or overlapping, even if the need to arrange a judgment in a logical order may give that impression. It can safely be inferred that, when deliberating on a question of fact with many aspects, even more certainly than when tackling a series of connected legal points, a judge who is himself the tribunal of fact will (a) recognize the issues and (b) view in its entirety a case where one issue is interwoven with another."

¶ [71] Following Lowry LCJ in R v. Thompson and R v. Thain, Mottley J.A. said in Randy Martin v. R at paragraph 31: "From these cases the following guidance may be discerned. A judge sitting in a criminal case without a jury, in rendering his decision and giving his reasons for so concluding, is not required to review every fact and to detail each argument on which the prosecution and defence rely as if he were summing up to a jury. The judge must set out the conclusion reached and make clear the reasons for arriving at that conclusion. He is required to have regard to any difficult or unusual points of law and to show how those points of law have in anyway impacted the conclusion that he has reached."

¶ [72] The issue of drunkenness has been raised in both Counts 1 and 2.

¶ [73] It is correct to say that the Defendant’s wife was more scared of the Defendant when he was drinking because he became violent. I do note that Constable Spence felt that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol by observing the Defendant’s unsteadiness, slurred speech and glazed eyes.

¶ [74] Mrs. Seymour did not say that the Defendant was in a drunken state, or that he did not know what he was doing. In fact, Mrs. Seymour pointed out that the Defendant returned in a calm and reasonable manner. He was in control of himself and was able to invite Mrs. Evans outside because “he had something good for her.”

¶ [75] As was stated by Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane in R v. Michael Sheehan (1974) 60 Cr. App. R. 308 at page 312 where he states: “We think that the proper direction to a jury is, first, to warn them that the mere fact that the defendant’s mind was affected by drink so that he acted in a way in which he would not have done had he been sober does not assist him at all, provided that the necessary intention was there. A drunken intent is nevertheless an intent. Secondly, and subject to this, the jury should merely be instructed to have regard to all the evidence, including that relating to drink, to draw such inference as they think proper from the evidence, and on that basis to ask themselves whether they feel sure that at the material time the defendant had the requisite intent.”

¶ [76] It is my duty to consider any evidence of intoxication. I must warn myself that the mere fact that the Defendant’s mind was affected by drink so that he might have acted in a way in which he would not have done, had he been sober does not assist the Defendant at all, provided that the necessary intention to commit the two offences set out in Counts 1 and 2 was there.

¶ [77] I have been impressed by the clear and cogent evidence of Mrs. Evans and Mrs. Seymour, which I have found to be honest and reliable. I have reviewed their evidence and concluded that, despite Constable Spence’s evidence, I can find no basis to support the contention that the Defendant was so under the influence of alcohol that he did not know what he was doing. Conclusion

¶ [78] I have considered all the evidence very carefully and listened to the submissions and the speeches of Senior Crown Counsel, Mr. Ward, and Defence Counsel, Mr. Furniss.

¶ [79] I remind myself that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. It is for the prosecution to prove that the Defendant is guilty, and further, it is never for the Defendant to have to prove his innocence.

¶ [80] I also remind myself that the prosecution must prove the Defendant’s guilt to a high standard of proof namely, that I must be satisfied that the Defendant is guilty of attempted murder, beyond all reasonable doubt, or alternatively, so that on the evidence before me, I can be sure that he is guilty. The same standard applies when I consider the second charge in Count 2 of Arson. I must consider the evidence against the Defendant on Count 1 and, separately, I must consider the evidence against the Defendant on Count 2.

¶ [81] When I carefully review the evidence, both before the 12th December 2010 and on the day in question, the Defendant had demonstrated that he had become exceedingly jealous of what he perceived was his wife’s infidelity. He indicated that people like her should not be allowed to live and she was
clearly so alarmed by this threat that some three and a half weeks before the incident on the 12th December 2010 she arranged to live in the Pappagallo apartment away from the matrimonial home.

¶ [82] There is evidence that the Defendant’s threats to his wife continued. On the night prior to the 12th December 2010 Mrs. Evans was so disturbed by the manner in which the Defendant picked up the knife that she made an excuse about needing “dish liquid” and left the matrimonial home to go to the Pappagallo apartment. Mrs. Evans did not return to the matrimonial home.

¶ [83] On the following morning the Defendant arrived at Plantation Village with a machete and, as Senior Crown counsel submitted, this was not a peaceful mission. As a result of Mrs. Seymour’s firm action the Defendant left the premises. However, the Defendant returned some 30 minutes later.

¶ [84] What this Court finds particularly disturbing is that it was gasoline and not H7 liquid which was in the H7 bottle which the Defendant had in his custody. The Defendant had the gasoline, together with a cigarette lighter when he, in a cool and calm manner, invited Mrs. Evans out of Plantation Village because he had “something good” to give her. The “something good” proceeded to be the gasoline which the Defendant sprayed on Mrs. Evans’s face and into her eyes from the H7 bottle.

¶ [85] The Court asks itself three questions: A. How did the gasoline get into the H7 bottle? – The Court finds that the Defendant knew that there was gasoline in the H7 bottle. Why else was he so quick to use the lighter to start the blaze on
the door of the Plantation Village reception office. The logical and compelling inference is that before he arrived and invited Mrs. Evans outside, the Defendant had poured gasoline into the H7 bottle. B. The second question the Court asks itself is: Why did the Defendant spray the gasoline into Mrs. Evans’s face and eyes? C. And the third question is: Why did the Defendant continue to try to spray Mrs. Evans until she and Mrs. Seymour managed to get the door closed?

¶ [86] The Court finds that the Defendant returned to Plantation Village prepared with gasoline and the lighter to carry out his intention to kill Mrs. Evans.

¶ [87] The Court notes that the Defendant was only prevented from spraying more of Mrs. Evans’s body with gasoline by the quick action and assistance from Mrs. Seymour. The Defendant sprayed the crack in the door, and the door itself, and immediately lit the gasoline he had sprayed on the door when Mrs. Evans just managed to close it with Mrs. Seymour’s assistance.

¶ [88] Not content with that, the Defendant then drove his truck into Mrs. Evans’s vehicle to disable it. He then drove his truck into the door of the reception area, which made a hole in the door, and then he proceeded to pour more gasoline from a larger container into the reception area, and immediately set it on fire.

¶ [89] I find that all these actions on the part of the Defendant, when taken as a whole, demonstrate an intention to kill Mrs. Evans, and only the quick action
of stopping the Defendant from spraying more gasoline over Mrs. Evans, prevented the Defendant from killing her.

¶ [90] Accordingly, I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty of attempted murder. I am also satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty of Arson, in that, without lawful excuse, he damaged by fire, property belonging to Plantation Village, intending to damage the property and intending, by the said damage to endanger the life of Mrs. Evans.

¶ [91] Accordingly I return a verdict of guilty on Counts 1 and 2. Dated this the 12th day of August 2011 Honourable Mr. Justice Charles Quin Judge of the Grand Court