Sanderson J
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS HOLDEN IN GEORGE TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN IND. NO. 61 OF 2003 - Criminal. REGINA - VS - LEONARD ANTONIO EBANKS Transcript of the reasons for sentence before THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SANDERSON on the 29th day of June, 2004, in George Town, Grand Cayman. CHARGE: ROBBERY APPEARANCES: For the CROWN: MS. M. SMITH For the DEFENDANT: MR. J. FURNISS 1 Reasons for Sentence - Sanderson J. Tuesday, June 29, 2004 REASONS FOR SENTENCE SANDERSON J.: Leonard Antonio Ebanks has plead guilty to the offence of robbery which carries a maximum penalty of life in prison. The facts are these:
On June 16, 2003, he entered the property of his neighbour at around 10:00 p.m. His neighbour was Alvey Webster, who was also his cousin.
He asked Mr. Webster for some cigarettes but Mr. Webster refused. This conversation occurred through the open back door of Mr. Webster's home.
After Mr. Webster's refusal, Mr. Ebanks walked in through the open door. He had been in this house on previous occasions. He repeated his 2 Reasons for Sentence - Sanderson J. request for cigarettes and it was again refused.
A scuffle then broke out between the two men. Mr. Ebanks drew a machete from his waistband that Mr. Webster had not seen before. He waved the machete in the air. Mr. Ebanks had grabbed Mr. Webster by the shirt near his neck and Mr. Webster's gold chain and medallion were broken off.
Mr. Ebanks kept the gold chain and medallion and left with it. It was valued by Mr. Webster at $398. Mr. Ebanks sold it I think for approximately $20. In passing sentence, I consider generally the following factors: 1. Protection of the public. 2. Deterrence to others. 3. Rehabilitation of the accused. In this country, robbery is viewed as an extremely serious offence. The sentencing 3 Reasons for Sentence - Sanderson J. guidelines provide that for a first offence, if it involves the use of a firearm it could attract a tariff of 14 years. Otherwise, for a first offence of an aggravated nature eight years will be imposed. The aggravating features of this case are these: 1. Mr. Ebanks was carrying a weapon and he chose to take it out and threaten its use by waving it around. If weapons are carried and then drawn, it is just a matter of luck whether or not someone gets hurt or killed. If the weapon had not been carried and drawn, this sentencing would have been quite different. 2. The robbery occurred in the complainant's home. 3. Mr. Ebanks has a long criminal record. He has 31 prior convictions, dating back to 1988 when he first began to use cocaine. He has been a cocaine user since that time. The significant prior convictions are these: 4 Reasons for Sentence - Sanderson J. (a) In 1990 he was convicted of robbery and sentenced to four and a half years. He robbed a gas station in West Bay using a firearm. (b) He has two other previous convictions for carrying an offensive weapon, one in 1997 for carrying a knife that he found, and one in 2003 for carrying a machete. In addition to the robbery, Mr. Ebanks has three convictions for assault, the first in 1991, the second in 2000 and the third in 2003. The mitigating factors to consider are these: 1. He plead guilty, although only after the complainant and eyewitness gave their testimony. 2. He said however, and I accept, that he was always prepared and had offered to plead guilty to theft and assault. 5 Reasons for Sentence - Sanderson J. 3. His family has already paid Mr. Webster compensation in the amount of $150. 4. The complainant says that he has forgiven Mr. Ebanks and he did not want to proceed with the charges. 5. I am told that for the first time in his life Mr. Ebanks is now undergoing drug counselling and has been doing so for approximately two months.
In my view, Mr. Ebanks did not enter into Mr. Webster's home with any intention of committing a robbery. That intention occurred later during the scuffle.
Apart from the drawing of the machete, the scuffle between the two men was relatively minor and no significant injuries were reported. In my view, the most significant factors in this case are the use of the machete and the accused's criminal record. He has used weapons and behaved violently towards others on too many occasions. I feel he is a threat to society. I believe that he has not learned very much from his previous convictions, and if I were to impose a light sentence it would be served and he will be back on the street in a short period of time, putting himself and others at risk. On the other hand, I am not without hope that he can turn his life around. That hope is slim, but I feel I must give it some chance. In all of the circumstances, I think a sentence of five years imprisonment is appropriate. During incarceration, I order that you undergo all drug treatment and drug counselling that is available to you in prison. MR. FURNISS: My Lord, could I ask that whatever time that he has available -- it will be a matter I say between him and the prison authorities, in view of those convictions from May of this year, that whatever time, if there is any left, might count towards the sentence, My Lord? THE COURT: Yes, the ordinary rule that will apply, Mr. Furniss, which is this, as I understand it: time served in custody will count towards the sentence provided that that time served has not gone towards the counting of some other sentence. MR. FURNISS: Indeed, sir. THE COURT: So I think the answer to your question is yes. MR. FURNISS: Thank you. THE COURT: Mr. Ebanks, you have a question. MR. EBANKS: My Lord -- THE COURT: Perhaps you'd like to speak to Mr. Furniss before you ask me. MR. EBANKS: No, sir. THE COURT: No? MR. EBANKS: This is for you, sir. THE COURT: All right. MR. EBANKS: This is about the times that -- I can understand not getting from May 4th until the 24th of this month, which my incarceration was finished, but from July 10th until May 4th, Your Honour, I was remanded before both the summary matters and the Grand Court matters. So I am begging the court to have that time restored back on me, sir. After May 4th I was sentenced, so I can't expect no time from there until the completeness (phonetic) of that sentence, which was completed on the 24th of this month. So from the 4th of May till the 24th of June I can only expect one. THE COURT: I understand your request, Mr. Ebanks, and I've granted that request. If you were on remand for this offence and your time is not served, has not been used to the credit of any sentence that you were under, then it will count towards the five years. MR. EBANKS: This is what I'm saying, Your Honour. Truth is I was remanded in both cases at the same time. The prison gave me that back when I got sentenced on the 4th. So unless you directly say, well, the fairness of it -- being on remand for it to have it back, if only you, the -- THE COURT: I understand, Mr. Ebanks. If you were on remand -- the time will count as time served if you are on remand. Mr. Furniss will check with the prison authorities, and if there's a difficulty with the prison authorities or any problem with calculation, he can come back before a judge at any time. My order is clear, if you're on remand then the time served on remand will count towards the sentence. If the time that you were serving has been counted towards another sentence or a conviction, then it will not count as time served on this offence. And the five years in this case will run consecutive to any other time that is being served for any other offence. Mr. Ebanks, I want you to do your best on the drug rehab program. If you do that sooner rather than later, I hope you can turn things around. MR. FURNISS: Obliged, My Lord. MR. EBANKS: Your Honour, I'd like to speak my mind frankly, sir, and I -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. EBANKS: Thank you for having leniency and mercy on me, first and foremost. But I'm a very strong believer that two wrongs do not make a right, sir. And the way the Crown went about things yesterday was totally wrong, sir, and I think there have to be some guidelines set in place to make -- have them have an understanding that they're not the law, they will uphold it. And you cannot bamboozle people into doing things like yesterday, because when I went and I called my grandmother to let her know what happened -- her and Mr. Webster works together, and I was told by Mr. Webster that he was told by the Crown that -- to just answer the questions and his letter, everything would still stand after he answered the questions, which I know it doesn't go so. He doesn't have the kind of the knowledge of the legal system that I do. So, in a sense of speaking, sir, I do take the sentence with a hard heart because it was a all out persistence to carry a matter further that was being resolved between the two individuals, which we know that the court is here to resolve any dispute between two individuals which do not -- cannot find a resolution. Me and Mr. Webster came to a resolution. We came to an answer. I can't bring back what I did. And all my convictions, you're looking at them, sir. They're all drug orientated even from the first robbery. Some of them happened 14 years ago, and I'm still being penalized for it. I went to prison to start the educational program that is there. I was one of the founders of that, Your Honour. I sat in the first set of GED's, went to college. I don't blame nobody for my downfalls, I blame myself. I stopped blaming others. I put the blame right square where it lies, within me, because I have that choice. And I know where my problem lie, my problem lie within the use of cocaine. THE COURT: Can you fix that? MR. EBANKS: I'm trying my best to fix it, sir. I have to fix it because I'm pretty sure, sir, the next time you see me it will be either for a murder charge or I'm going to the grave, and I can't afford neither of the two of those, sir. THE COURT: Well, Mr. Ebanks, you strike me as a man who is intelligent -- MR. EBANKS: I do have high intelligence, sir. THE COURT: -- and capable enough, so it's a matter of choice. MR. EBANKS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And you suffer an addiction. MR. EBANKS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And you need help with that addiction. MR. EBANKS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And if you can overcome that addiction, I think you'll be all right. And if you can't, I'm afraid you won't be -- MR. EBANKS: And just another -- THE COURT: Let me deal with your comments because some people are under the misapprehension that in a criminal case it's a dispute between two individuals and if one person drops the charge then that's the end of the matter. That is a misunderstanding. It is not a dispute between two individuals. If a crime has been committed, an offence has been committed, it is not up to the complainant or the person who's injured to determine whether or not the charge goes ahead. If that were the case, if it was always up to the victim, what would happen in every case is the victim would be under incredible pressure from the accused either directly or through the accused's acquaintances to drop the charges. So you can imagine what the system would be like. Somebody would complain about an offence and the accused would be strong armed by all kinds of unsavoury characters and threatened. And so it can't be up to the accused -- and in some cases it's not even up to the Crown -- it has to be up to the court. The court has to make sure that the rules of the game are kept, that the laws are obeyed, and you broke the law. MR. EBANKS: I clearly admit that from the beginning. THE COURT: And I did -- MR. EBANKS: I was really relying on him for that, sir. THE COURT: I know. MR. EBANKS: And that understanding I do have was more to say that this robbery, how they put it as a robbery, which to me if he never had that knife in my face I would have never pulled the machete out of my waist. I mean -- but as I say, two wrongs cannot make a right. THE COURT: And that's the other option -- MR. EBANKS: I -- THE COURT: Mr. Ebanks. There was no evidence that he pulled a knife. But even assuming that there was, there's always that other option. MR. EBANKS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: There's always that other option, isn't there? MR. EBANKS: Walk away. THE COURT: Turn around and walk away. MR. EBANKS: But the point I'm getting at, sir, Mr. Webster -- Mr. Jackson clearly stated here 14 Reasons for Sentence - Sanderson J. before he left, the problems arises out of his homosexuality. He be's up, he be's waiting up all night, waiting for his, as Mr. Jackson -- and I do quote, "parade". Now, this man -- this man here, he allows his yard for the use and sale of drugs. As far as the last time I checked, pornographic material is illegal in these islands. Same -- DC Julian Lewis, last time I see him at Northward he told me he had searched the place, found these tapes. He's waiting for -- to legally charge him. Mr. Webster is also up on criminal charges for possession of marijuana that never seems to go nowhere. I mean, you stop and you wonder about the system, sir. THE COURT: Well, you know -- MR. EBANKS: But -- THE COURT: You know what? Mr. Ebanks, just -- MR. EBANKS: -- rule it out. THE COURT: Just a second. Just a second. You don't want to rule the system out, it works pretty well. I don't want to hear anything more about Mr. Webster. But if everything you say is true about any victim, if the victim is the most awful, terrible, evil, corrupt person in society, you can't attack them, you can't hurt them. 15 Reasons for Sentence - Sanderson J. MR. EBANKS: I understand that. THE COURT: You can't commit crimes against them. MR. EBANKS: That's true, sir. They have the -- THE COURT: And that's the beauty -- MR. EBANKS: -- same rights. THE COURT: That's the beauty of the legal system. It protects everybody the same. MR. EBANKS: I know, sir, but this -- THE COURT: Just let me finish this. You have 31 convictions. MR. EBANKS: Uhm-hmm. THE COURT: That gives nobody the right, sir, to hold a machete over your head or threaten you, does it? And if somebody does that to you and you complain and you come into this court, the judge will treat the accused exactly the same as he would treat him or her if you had no convictions. Your character doesn't affect what the accused did. MR. EBANKS: Thank you very much, sir. THE COURT: Sir, I want you to do your best. MR. EBANKS: Yeah, man. But to be able to do my best I have to ask you this morning for your consent. Right now where my present stay to me, sir, is the most safest place in the prison. 16 Reasons for Sentence - Sanderson J. THE COURT: Is what? MR. EBANKS: Is the most safest place in prison. THE COURT: What is the safest place? MR. EBANKS: Well, you see, my understanding is this has to do with time in a safe environment to make the best of it for yourself, to make the most appropriate choices for your rehabilitation. As you see on my convictions and you say of violence, there's quite a few that's there -- that's not there, that has never made it to the legal department, nor even to the police station. I do have quite a few anyways, sir. So I'm asking, for my well-being, that if you can ask the officers to leave me where I am to do my sentence because if I get the ten months back I ain't too far off the parole time because I got 21 months before I'm eligible for parole. I am, for the necessary criteria, to attain that once that day arrives. THE COURT: Where are you now? MR. EBANKS: I'm at Delta Roman. Mr. Brown here, he will be able to instruct the prisons once he gets verification from you. THE COURT: I have no -- MR. EBANKS: You have that power, sir. THE COURT: I don't have any power sir, as far as 17 Reasons for Sentence - Sanderson J. I'm aware, to direct where you are incarcerated. That's up to the prison authorities. MR. EBANKS: Well, I can pretty much guarantee you, sir, you'll be seeing me again then. THE COURT: Well, what does that mean? MR. EBANKS: Because the first person that's getting me in a bad manner, sir, I'm gonna set them -- MR. FURNISS: If I could just indicate in relation to the current situation. Mr. Ebanks was at Central for a period of time because of problems, so I will write to prison authorities in respect of the situation and what has been said in the court this morning so that even if the officer who is present does not pass on that comment and that concern expressed by Mr. Ebanks, I will write to the authorities at Northward. THE COURT: Ms. Smith, do you know if I have any authority to direct where the inmate should be incarcerated? MS. SMITH: No, please, My Lord, I don't believe so. Once you pass sentence, it is up to prison authorities as far as... THE COURT: I did it once before, but that was with the consent of the Crown and the prison authorities. MS. SMITH: My Lord, Mr. Furniss says that he's aware of these difficulties that Mr. Ebanks has had. I don't believe that the Crown -- I am not aware of them. We are not aware of any particular difficulty. Maybe if it were brought to our attention, maybe senior Crown counsel can have a look at it. But at this point, we are not aware of a particular difficulty. THE COURT: Well, will you do what you can to assist Mr. Furniss in this? MS. SMITH: Yes, please, My Lord. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. FURNISS: Thank you, My Lord. (COURT ADJOURNED AT 10:45 AM)