Palmer J
20251031 - R v. Jeremy Darl Manderson – Ind. 55 of 2024 Coram. Palmer J. (Actg.). Sentence Judgment IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 1 CRIMINAL SIDE 2 3 Neutral Citation Number: [2025] CIGC (Crim) 73 4 IND. No: 55 of 2024 5 6 7 REX 8 9 V 10 11 Jeremy Darl Manderson 12 13 14 Appearances: Mr. Scott Wainwright for the Crown 15 Ms. Amelia Fosuhene for the Defendant 16 17 Before: Justice Dale Palmer (Actg.) 18 19 Sentence Hearing: 10th October 2025 20 21 Sentence Judgment: 31st October 2025 22 23 24 HEADNOTE 25 Criminal Law – Sentence Indication – Causing Grievous Bodily Harm with 26 intent 27 28 SENTENCE JUDGMENT 29 30 31 32 33 20251031 - R v. Jeremy Darl Manderson – Ind. 55 of 2024 Coram. Palmer J. (Actg.). Sentence Judgment INTRODUCTION 1
The Defendant, Jeremy Darl Manderson, was arraigned on an indictment originally 2 charging him with attempted murder, contrary to section 194 of the Penal Code 3 (2024 Revision) in the Grand Court on June 7, 2024, when he entered a plea of not 4 guilty. Trial was initially fixed for November 25, 2024, and then for February 3, 5 2025 when the matter could not be reached due to other business. On February 4, 6 2025, a jury was empanelled and the following day, the defendant made an 7 application for a “Goodyear” sentence indication for plea to the lesser offence of 8 Causing Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent, contrary to section 203 of the Penal 9 Code (2024 Revision). 10 11
The Crown opened to the facts of the case, the CCTV footage of the incident was 12 shown, and the Court made an indication of a maximum sentence of 11 years 13 imprisonment. He having entered a guilty plea the defendant now falls to be 14 sentenced on the lesser count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. 15 16 SUMMARY OF FACTS 17
Shortly before midnight on Monday, May 20, 2024, officers from the Royal Cayman 18 Islands Police Service (RCIPS) were on mobile patrol in the vicinity of the Jungle 19 Bar; located in the Trafalgar Place Plaza, at the Northern end of the West Bay Road, 20 close to the public beach. Upon entering the parking lot of the bar, officers observed 21 a male lying on his back in the parking lot. His face and head area were covered in 22 blood, and there was a pool of blood close to his head on the ground. The man was 23 seriously injured, with the left side of his face swollen and bruised, his left eye 24 swollen shut and the top of his head bore visible open wounds. The man was found 25 to be unresponsive. He was later identified as the victim, Ernie Ebanks. 26 27
Officers administered emergency medical treatment to Mr. Ebanks and paramedics 28 were called to the scene. He was thereafter transported to the George Town Hospital 29 and later examined and treated by a Consultant Neurosurgeon. CT scans revealed 30 multiple fractures to his skull and facial bones. He was admitted to the critical care 31 unit where he was placed on a ventilator, which was discontinued on May 26, 2024 32 and he was discharged from the hospital on the June 4, 2024. He travelled to Miami, 33 Florida to continue his treatment and care. 34 20251031 - R v. Jeremy Darl Manderson – Ind. 55 of 2024 Coram. Palmer J. (Actg.). Sentence Judgment
Mr. Ebanks awoke unable to recall anything from the incident, but part of the 1 incident was captured on CCTV footage retrieved from the parking lot outside the 2 bar. It showed Mr. Ebanks, being knocked to the ground by what appears to be a 3 punch from a male wearing ¾ length pants and a dark coloured short sleeved top. 4 This other man, identified as the defendant, was seen to repeatedly stamp on Mr. 5 Ebanks’s head and face during an assault that lasted for approximately 2 ½ minutes. 6 7
The CCTV footage then captured the defendant leaving in a silver-coloured Honda 8 Fit vehicle. Approximately 45mins later, a silver Honda Fit was stopped in the 9 parking lot of the Strand plaza off the West Bay Road, a relatively short distance 10 from the scene of the incident. The defendant, Mr. Manderson, was the driver of the 11 vehicle and a male, Jordan Manderson, was in the passenger seat of the vehicle. Both 12 males appeared to be intoxicated and were resistant and belligerent towards the 13 police. The defendant was observed wearing ¾ length pants and a dark coloured 14 short sleeved top, and had what appeared to be a fresh injury to the knuckles of his 15 right hand. The defendant was arrested and taken into police custody. His clothing 16 was also seized. 17 18
DNA profiles were taken from the defendant and the victim, extracted from their 19 mouth swabs. A number of blood stains were identified on the defendant’s clothing 20 he was wearing when arrested and upon analysis, DNA profiles were extracted from 21 the bloodstaining that matched that of Mr Ebanks. Slippers and socks being worn by 22 the defendant at the time of arrest also bore Mr. Ebank’s DNA profile. A white T- 23 shirt was recovered from the scene that bore several bloodstains that bore DNA 24 profiles linked the defendant and the victim. DNA profiles linked to the victim were 25 also linked to blood stains found on the pedals of the vehicle driven by the defendant, 26 as well as on the passenger side footwell of the said vehicle. 27 28
In his letter to the Court, Mr Manderson said that the complainant made an advance 29 to him and assaulted him resulting in him losing control. The suggestion is that in 30 view of a sexual assault the defendant alleged that he suffered as a child, the alleged 31 sexual assault at the bar triggered a reaction. He states that he “blacked out” and lost 32 control and did not intend to cause the grievous injuries he did. He indicated further 33 in his letter to the court that he has engaged in counselling while on remand, is 34 remorseful about what occurred, and was seeking a non-custodial sentence or one 35 that placed emphasis on his rehabilitation. 36 20251031 - R v. Jeremy Darl Manderson – Ind. 55 of 2024 Coram. Palmer J. (Actg.). Sentence Judgment VIR 1
Mr. Ebanks, by order of this court, was interviewed for preparation of a victim 2 impact report. He recounted that his last memory before the incident was that he was 3 headed to the Jungle Bar on the night in question. He recalls waking up in the George 4 Town Hospital and subsequently learnt that he was initially unconscious when he 5 was admitted and for the first three days after his admission. As reported by Mr. 6 Ebanks, he spent a total of nine days in the George Town Hospital before he was 7 transferred to the Baptist Hospital in Miami, Florida, for further medical treatment. 8 Mr. Ebanks underwent a 5-hour surgery on his left jaw, which was broken from the 9 incident. He awoke from the surgery with stitches around his eye and was told that 10 titanium screws were inserted into his jaw from the inside of his eye. He said that his 11 teeth were wired for about six weeks. 12 13
Mr. Ebanks disclosed that although he spent two months in Miami, he was admitted 14 in the hospital for about one week. Afterwards he stayed at a private residence from 15 where he travelled back and forth for his follow up doctors' appointments. Mr. 16 Ebanks also reported that after the initial two months, he returned to the Cayman 17 Islands; however, he went back to Miami shortly afterwards to have the wire 18 removed from his teeth. 19 20
In relation to the financial impact, Mr. Ebanks said that his insurance covered the 21 cost of surgeries and a few of the doctors' visits, but after the wire was removed from 22 his mouth, he had to pay out-of-pocket. Mr. Ebanks also shared that he engaged in 23 counselling sessions with a psychologist and saw a psychiatrist. He reported that he 24 paid for these services out-of-pocket, for a total of approximately $18,000.00 Cl. 25 26
Mr. Ebanks stated that he was off from work for a total of four months, which though 27 a substantial period of time, was shorter than his doctor had recommended as he was 28 eager to return to a routine and did not want to remain home alone. He expressed 29 that the attack has made a drastic change to his life, to include psychological trauma 30 as he is now less sociable, suffers anxiety and has problems sleeping. 31 32
Physically, he continues to suffer numbness of the upper and lower teeth and must 33 eat soft foods. Psychologically, he endures anxiety, sleep disturbance, and reduced 34 sociability. He stated, “I am not the same person … I used to be.” He remains hyper- 35 vigilant about his safety and wary of going out socially. 36 20251031 - R v. Jeremy Darl Manderson – Ind. 55 of 2024 Coram. Palmer J. (Actg.). Sentence Judgment
Mr. Ebanks shared that his immediate family members were also impacted. He 1 informed that his wife took time off from work to accompany him overseas and to 2 help take care of him. He disclosed that she was off work for a total of three months, 3 during which time she did not receive a salary. He divulged that his daughter shared 4 with him her fear that he would not remember her when he came out of the coma. 5 6 SOCIAL INQUIRY REPORT (SIR) 7
The SlR, provides important context regarding the defendant’s background, personal 8 history, and rehabilitative prospects. The defendant, Jeremy Darl Manderson Jr., is 9 a young Caymanian in his early twenties who experienced significant instability 10 during childhood. He disclosed that he was sexually assaulted by a relative at a 11 young age and never received formal psychological support or counselling related 12 to that event. The report describes the long-term impact of this trauma, noting 13 symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder and heightened sensitivity 14 to perceived sexual provocation. 15 16
The defendant left secondary school early and has since held short-term or casual 17 employment in the hospitality and service sectors. At the time of his arrest, he was 18 unemployed and living with family members. Family relations are described as 19 strained but supportive; his mother expressed concern for his emotional wellbeing 20 and his tendency to withdraw when distressed. 21 22
The report notes that the defendant occasionally consumes alcohol but does not have 23 a pattern of dependency. On the night of the offence, he had been drinking socially 24 but did not consider himself intoxicated. The probation officer expressed the opinion 25 that his violent reaction was impulsive and likely linked to a trauma reactivation 26 triggered by the victim’s alleged sexual advance. 27 28
The defendant expressed remorse and accepted that his actions were wrong and 29 disproportionate, though the officer observed some tendency to externalize blame by 30 focusing on the victim’s conduct. He has since engaged in counselling and anger 31 management programmes while on remand and is regarded as receptive to 32 psychological intervention, with a good prognosis for rehabilitation. 33 34 35 36 20251031 - R v. Jeremy Darl Manderson – Ind. 55 of 2024 Coram. Palmer J. (Actg.). Sentence Judgment
Risk assessment using the LS/CMI tool placed him in the medium-risk category for 1 reoffending, driven largely by unresolved trauma and emotional regulation 2 difficulties rather than a pro-criminal orientation. The report recommends continued 3 trauma-focused therapy and structured psychological support both during custody 4 and following release. The probation officer concludes that the gravity of the offence 5 and the need for public protection make a community-based or suspended sentence 6 inappropriate in this case. 7 8 SUBMISSIONS 9 Crown 10
The Crown reminded the Court that the maximum penalty for an offence of causing 11 grievous bodily harm with intent under section 203 of the Penal Code is life 12 imprisonment. Relying on the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines on Violent 13 Offences, the prosecution submitted that this case properly falls within Category 1 – 14 involving greater harm and higher culpability. Greater harm because the injuries 15 were serious in the context of the offence, and higher culpability due to the use of a 16 shod foot and the prolonged and repeated nature of the assault. 17 18
Category 1 classification of offences, the Crown noted, carry a starting point of 12 19 years’ imprisonment with a range of 9 to 16 years. The Crown further identified 20 several aggravating features: 21 • the public location of the assault in the car park of licensed premises where 22 members of the public were likely to be present; 23 • the timing of the attack, occurring shortly before midnight; 24 • the defendant’s failure to comply with existing probation orders, having been 25 placed on a 15-month order only two months prior for drug-related offences; and 26 • his relevant antecedents, including a previous conviction for common assault for 27 which he was ordered to pay compensation. 28 29
As to credit for his plea, the prosecution submitted that the defendant should receive 30 no more than the minimal 10% reduction applicable to a plea entered ostensibly at 31 the door of the court, since he had consistently denied responsibility for the assault 32 until trial, and no earlier indication of an intention to plead guilty to a lesser offence 33 was given. 34 35 20251031 - R v. Jeremy Darl Manderson – Ind. 55 of 2024 Coram. Palmer J. (Actg.). Sentence Judgment Defence 1
Counsel for the Defendant submitted that Mr. Manderson was originally charged 2 with attempted murder but entered a guilty plea to the alternative count of causing 3 grievous bodily harm with intent under section 203 of the Penal Code (2024 4 Revision) on February 5, 2025, immediately after the alternative count was added to 5 the indictment. This followed a Goodyear indication that the likely sentence would 6 not exceed eleven years’ imprisonment. The defence accepted the general accuracy 7 of the prosecution’s summary of facts but highlighted two evidential limitations: 8 • the CCTV footage was unclear and without audio, leaving uncertainty as to 9 the precise sequence and nature of the exchange; and 10 • the complainant’s loss of memory prevented independent verification of 11 how the altercation began. 12 13
In mitigation, it was submitted that the defendant has endured a deeply troubled 14 upbringing, marked by instability and the impact of a sexual abuse he suffered as a 15 child. It was contended that the sexual advance allegedly made by the victim on the 16 night in question triggered a traumatic response, causing the defendant to react 17 violently in a moment of panic rather than with intent to cause grievous harm. 18 Counsel submitted that the complainant was intoxicated, and the CCTV footage 19 shows that it was he who approached the defendant, not vice versa. 20 21
The defendant’s letter to the court was said to demonstrate genuine remorse and 22 insight into the wrongfulness of his actions. He described his difficult background, 23 the violent loss of close family members, and the absence of prior counselling, for 24 his trauma. Counsel noted that Mr. Manderson is a young man in his early twenties, 25 with no prior experience of extended imprisonment, and who has since received 26 counselling and acknowledged that his reaction was wrong. The defence abandoned 27 an earlier intention to obtain a psychiatric report, noting that his issues were 28 psychological rather than psychiatric in nature and that he has already availed 29 himself of prison-based therapy. 30 31
The court was urged that in tempering punishment with mercy, to take into account 32 the defendant’s youth, remorse, guilty plea, and history of trauma, and to give him 33 full credit for entering his plea promptly after the relevant count was added. Counsel 34 emphasised that each case turns on its own facts, and that while the guidelines are 35 20251031 - R v. Jeremy Darl Manderson – Ind. 55 of 2024 Coram. Palmer J. (Actg.). Sentence Judgment useful, the unique psychological and factual context here warranted a substantial 1 reduction from the indicated sentence of eleven years. 2 3 THE LAW 4 Assault occasioning actual bodily harm 5
Section 203 of the Penal Code (2024 Revision) states: 6 A person who, unlawfully and maliciously, by any means, wounds or causes 7 grievous bodily harm to a person with intent to do grievous bodily harm to any 8 person or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer 9 of any person, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment 10 for life. 11 “Goodyear” indication 12
The procedure by which a defendant can obtain such an indication is governed by 13 the decision in Goodyear [2005] EWCA Crim. 888; [2005] Cr. App. R. 20. The 14 judge should only consider giving an indication as to the maximum sentence where 15 there is agreement between the crown and the defence about the basis of plea. The 16 agreed basis of the plea was as follows: 17 1. The defendant accepts that he was the person who assaulted Ernie Ebanks 18 on Monday, 20th May 2024 outside of Jungle Bar, West Bay Road, Grand 19 Cayman. 20 2. The defendant accepts that his behaviour was wrong and enters a guilty 21 plea on the basis that he used both his hands and feet to assault Mr Ebanks. 22 3. The defendant had been drinking "Wray and Nephews" in the hours and 23 minutes before he was approached by Mr Ebanks. 24 4. Following an exchange between the defendant and Mr Ebanks, the 25 defendant reacted. However, he accepts that his reaction in assaulting Mr 26 Ebanks was not proportionate to what occurred in the exchange between 27 them. 28 5. The defendant agrees he was interviewed by the police on 27th May 2024 in 29 his interview he stated he did not attempt to murder anyone, however, he 30 also said he did not assault anyone. He did indicate that he had been 31 assaulted. 32 6. It is also agreed that the Defendant provided a second statement to the 33 police on 2nd of June 2024, a copy is attached. The truth of the content within 34 that statement is not agreed between the prosecution and the defence. It is 35 attached only for the purpose of this Goodyear application, and it is brought 36 to the attention of the court because it is what provided by the defendant. 37 38
Most sentence indications are made prior to trial but this indication was made after 39 a jury had been empanelled. The facts of the case having been opened, and the court 40 having viewed the CCTV footage of the incident in question, an indication of a 41 maximum sentence of eleven years imprisonment was given. A second and 42 alternative count of Causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 43 20251031 - R v. Jeremy Darl Manderson – Ind. 55 of 2024 Coram. Palmer J. (Actg.). Sentence Judgment 203 of the Penal Code (2024 Revision) was added to the indictment. A guilty plea 1 was then entered to that count. The prosecution indicated that the plea to count two 2 was acceptable in full satisfaction of the indictment. Count one will be disposed of 3 at the point of sentence. 4 5 SENTENCING GUIDELINES 6
In determining the category in which this assault falls to arrive at a suitable sentence, 7 is in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines for Violent Offences, gives direction 8 based on the level of harm and culpability of the defendant. Regarding harm, it seems 9 there is no dispute that the facts of this case fall within greater harm according to the 10 guidelines, as the injury, which is serious in the context of the offence, also includes 11 significant psychological harm to the victim and his family. 12 13
Where the parties’ views diverge is as to whether the facts of this case fall within the 14 category of higher or lower culpability. The factors that point toward higher 15 culpability are that the defendant used a shod foot, wearing rubber slippers later 16 found to be stained with the victim’s blood, and that the assault—lasting 17 approximately two and a half minutes—was particularly vicious and prolonged, even 18 in the context of his claim to have lost control following a perceived sexual assault, 19 during which the victim is not seen to offer resistance. Although he asserts that he 20 “blacked out” during the incident, he nevertheless drove away from the scene, 21 leaving the victim severely injured and unconscious, with the victim’s blood still on 22 his clothes and slippers. As it relates to lower culpability the main factor that weighs 23 in its favour is the fact that from all indications, the assault lacked pre-meditation 24 and there appears to be an element of provocation according to the defendant’s 25 account. 26 27
I believe the facts fall within a categorization of category 1; greater harm and higher 28 culpability, with a starting point of 12 years in custody and a range of between 9- 29 and 16-years imprisonment. The guidelines outline several additional mitigating and 30 aggravating factors to consider in determining length of sentence. The following are 31 additional aggravating factors relevant to the facts of this case: 32 • The location of the offence; 33 • Timing of the offence; 34 • Additional mental and physical suffering inflicted on the victim above the 35 necessary for commission of the offence; 36 20251031 - R v. Jeremy Darl Manderson – Ind. 55 of 2024 Coram. Palmer J. (Actg.). Sentence Judgment • Failure of comply with current court orders including license or post 1 sentence supervision; 2 The following additional mitigating factors from the guidelines also apply: 3 • Remorse; 4 • Isolated incident. 5 6 THE SENTENCE 7 8
The victim suffered catastrophic and potentially life-threatening injuries that 9 required major surgery, prolonged hospitalization, significant time away from work 10 with a lasting physical and psychological impact on him. While the assault was 11 especially violent, there is nothing to indicate that there was premeditation. 12 According to the defendant’s account the assault was a spontaneous reaction to a 13 sexual provocation, against the backdrop of his prior history of sexual abuse. 14 15
The following the aggravating factors relevant to the facts of this case: 16 • The incident occurred at a publicly accessible area. 17 • The incident occurred close to midnight. 18 • The violent nature of the assault resulted in physical and psychological 19 injury above that necessary for the commission of the offence. The 20 severity of the injuries inflicted resulted in major surgery and months of 21 recovery. The victim has lingering psychological trauma from the 22 incident. 23 • The victim was left severely injured and in a pool of his own blood after 24 the incident for an undetermined period of time and the outcome could 25 well have been worse but for the intervention of the emergency services. 26 • The defendant was on a probation order at the time of the commission of 27 the offence. 28 • Accused antecedent history - Though it seems the accused had never been 29 to prison, he was previously convicted for assault. 30 31
The following mitigating factors are considered: 32 • The defendant expressed remorse at the degree of injury he inflicted and 33 says that was never his intention. 34 • The incident was an isolated incident. 35 20251031 - R v. Jeremy Darl Manderson – Ind. 55 of 2024 Coram. Palmer J. (Actg.). Sentence Judgment • The defendant is young and the incident was a spontaneous reaction; 1 • The defendant was the victim of a sexual assault that appears to have caused 2 a trauma response in him during the incident. 3 • He has good family support, which contributes the to the good prospects for 4 rehabilitation. 5 6
All the factors identified above do not take into consideration the significant 7 financial loss suffered to complete his medical treatment. This is further aggravated 8 by the fact that he has a prior conviction for a common assault for which he was 9 fined, and he was on probation and community service for drug possession just two 10 months before this incident. With a starting point of 12 years, the factors referred to 11 above serve to aggravate the offending by 2 years for a total of 14 years 12 imprisonment. 13 14
The SIR paints the defendant as a young man that has had an unstable upbringing, 15 made the more difficult by the sexual assault he suffered as a child. It shows that he 16 received counselling and anger management and as such his prospects for 17 rehabilitation are high. He has expressed his remorsefulness at what occurred, 18 though the SIR suggests that he seems to place more blame for what occurred on the 19 victim than on his own lack of control. I do take note of his age, that this was an 20 isolated incident involving this complainant and that he has good family support. It 21 was also indicated in the plea in mitigation, the willingness of his brother to help 22 him to embark on a possible business venture so that he is gainful engaged upon his 23 release from custody. The factors when considered mitigate the sentence by 3 years 24 to 11 years imprisonment. 25 26
Consideration must be given to the fact that the plea was offered at a very late stage 27 of the proceedings; after the jury had already been empanelled. It is noted by counsel 28 who appears for him that his plea was promptly offered after the indictment was 29 amended to add the second count. The Crown’s submission is for a reduction of no 30 more than ten percent (10%), while Defence, while not stating a specific amount, 31 seeks a more significant reduction from the eleven years stated in the Goodyear 32 indication. 33 34 35 36 20251031 - R v. Jeremy Darl Manderson – Ind. 55 of 2024 Coram. Palmer J. (Actg.). Sentence Judgment
The sentence of eleven (11) years is reduced by 9% for a total of 10 years 1 imprisonment at hard labour. He is of course entitled to be credited for time spent in 2 custody, which would be from May 20, 2024 when he was taken into custody. The 3 sentence of this court is 10 years imprisonment at hard labour for count 2 on the 4 indictment, with credit to be given for time spent. 5 6 7 Dated this the 31st October 2025 8 9 10 JUSTICE DALE PALMER 11 ACTING JUDGE OF THE GRAND COURT 12