Henderson J
ORIGINAL IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS HOLDEN AT GEORGE TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN 16/5/03 SCA NO. 23/02 BETWEEN: DUNCAN WRIGHT - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant Respondent RULING Delivered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Henderson, on May 16, 2003, in George Town, Grand Cayman FOR THE RESPONDENT Ms. M. Smith-Andalcio FOR THE APPELLANT Represents self REPORTED BY: C. ROUSE OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
Ruling 5 Henderson, J. (Orally): 7 Duncan Leroy Wright brings this appeal from a sentence of imprisonment for five years imposed upon him in the Summary Court for possession of cocaine with intent to supply and possession of ganja. It is the possession of cocaine with intent to supply that is the most serious of the offences and it is upon that which I will focus in these reasons. There was also a conviction for consumption of ganja. 17 Mr. Wright pleaded 'guilty. He has an extensive criminal record, including a previous conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to supply. The learned Magistrate said in her reasons for sentence, "The offence was committed while the defendant was on probation". That was in error. Counsel are agreed that Mr. Wright was not on probation at the time the instant offences were committed.
Ruling The learned Magistrate's misconception would clearly have influenced her as an aggravating factor. I think for that reason alone this sentence must be reduced. Mr. Wright did plead guilty and he is someone who, as the magistrate found, was struggling with an addiction. Having regard to the cases which have been cited, I am not satisfied that Mr. Wright's guilty plea was recognized to the appropriate extent. On the other hand, there is a principle of sentencing which suggests that, in general, repeat offenders should be given longer sentences than they have been given in the past, provided there is some rough equivalence between the present offence and the offences for which they were convicted previously. Mr. Wright's longest sentence in the past has been a term of imprisonment for 18 months, although nine months of that sentence was suspended. In all of the circumstances here, and having regard to the concession made by the Crown during argument, I am of the view that the
Ruling 1 sentence under appeal must be set aside and a 2 sentence of imprisonment for three years 3 substituted in its place. The appeal is 4 allowed. The sentence is reduced to one of 5 imprisonment of three years. 7 8 Henderson, J. 9 The Honourable Justice Henderson 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Certified correct to the best of my skill and ability, 18 dated the 3rd day of May 2003. 19 20 21 22 Carol Rouse 23 24 25 Friday, May 16, 2003