Quin J
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CRIMINAL SIDE INDICTMENT NO: 14/12 THE QUEEN V CALMORE WILBUR RANGE Appearances: Ms. Candia James for the Crown Mr. John Furniss for the Defendant Before: The Hon. Mr. Justice Charles Quin Heard: 9th March 2012 (Sentencing submissions heard) SENTENCE RULING
On the 17th February 2012 the Defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted robbery contrary to s.242 of the Penal Code (2010 Revision) and the particulars of the offence are that the Defendant, on the 2nd day of December 2011, at Countryside Shopping Centre, Bodden Town, Grand Cayman, attempted to steal a bag of cash from Donovan Ricketts ("Mr. Ricketts"), and in order to do so used force against the said Donovan Ricketts.
Crown counsel set out the facts and stated that Mr. Ricketts, a security officer, was on duty, and was involved in the transportation of money for Cayman Armoured Security Company. Mr. Ricketts was leaving Foster’s Food Fair in the Countryside Shopping Centre, with a black canvas bag. When he was approaching the armoured van the Defendant approached him from the opposite direction and grabbed the black money bag in an attempt to pull it out of Mr. Ricketts’s grip.
After a short struggle Mr. Ricketts punched the Defendant in the stomach area and pulled hard on the bag, thereby freeing the bag from the Defendant’s grip. This caused Mr. Ricketts to fall backwards and stumble to the ground and, at the same time, the Defendant ran away from the scene on foot – disappearing behind the buildings at the edge of the road.
Four (4) days later on the 6th December 2011 the police officers from the Bodden Town Police Station were contacted by the Immigration Officers at the Owen Roberts Airport and were informed that the Defendant was currently at the airport attempting to depart.
PC Berry and Detective Sgt Mason attended the airport and arrested the Defendant on suspicion of attempted robbery.
The Defendant, once with the police officers, admitted that he, in fact, was the person who attempted to rob Mr. Ricketts, and the Defendant said he was sorry that he “did something so stupid.”
During an interview with the police the Defendant stated that he had three or more beers on that evening and he was walking to Foster’s Food Fair to purchase a meal. He said he had also just finished speaking with his daughter, who lives in Venezuela, on the telephone, and she had told him that she was ill and that the Defendant’s mother was seriously ill. The Defendant said the emotional stress caused by this information, coupled with the effects of the alcohol he had consumed, affected him so that, when he saw the security officer come out of Foster’s with the bag, he immediately attempted to grab the bag and pull it from him.
It is accepted by the Crown that the Defendant cooperated with the police.
The Crown accepts that this was a spontaneous attack and that nobody was hurt and no money was stolen. The Crown also accepts that the Defendant did not use any weapon in this attempted robbery.
Counsel on behalf of the Defendant asked the Court to consider this offence as an isolated incident. The Defendant has been very stupid and has admitted his stupidity to the police. The Defendant did not try, in any way, to avoid acknowledging his culpability. The Defendant’s mother and sister are infirmed, and this, coupled with the effects of the alcohol on the night in question caused the Defendant to carry out this very foolish attack on the security guard, the result of which was a clumsy attempt to try and steal the money bag from the security guard.
Both counsel have referred the Court to the UK Sentencing Guidelines and both accept that this attempted robbery comes into the category of less sophisticated commercial robberies.
The nature and duration of the force and threat on the security guard was minimal. The Defendant caused no injury to the security guard and no property was stolen.
The Court also accepts that this was an unplanned and opportunistic attack, which probably resulted from the Defendant having consumed too much alcohol, and also from him having received the news of the sudden ill-health of his family members. Both these factors, combined with the Defendant seeing a lone security guard with what was probably a bag of money, evidently propelled the Defendant into thinking that instant wealth from robbing the security guard was a possibility.
Both counsel refer to the UK Sentencing Guidelines and Crown counsel submits that this offence comes into the second category where the starting point is four years’ custody and the range is from two (2) to seven (7) years’ custody. Defence counsel submits that the nature of the offence makes the sentencing ranging fall in the first category, with a starting point of twelve (12) months custody, and a sentencing range of up to three (3) years custody.
In my view, the offence falls into the first category due to the following mitigating factors: a. This was a rather hopeless and clumsy attempt to steal money and there is every indication that the attempt was unplanned and had very little prospect of success owing to the facts that the Defendant: a) Did not arm himself with a weapon to carry out his robbery attempt; b) Did not disguise himself in any way for the robbery; c) Struggled only for a brief time with the security guard and gave up the struggle at the first sign of resistance; d) Evidently gave no prior thought to the possibility of a uniformed officer being, in some way, armed, thereby possibly enabling the security guard to wound him in some way. All this demonstrates and substantiates the unplanned nature of the offence.
I take into account the very helpful Social Inquiry Report from Mr. Joseph Tatum, and the fact that the Defendant has shown genuine remorse and contrition. Mr. Tatum highlights the fact that, on the management inventory risk assessment the Defendant has a very low risk of re-offending and that he is also a first-time offender.
I note that the Defendant comes before the Court as man of 41 years of age with no previous convictions. He was fully cooperative with the police and he entered a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity.
This was a wholly unnecessary attack on the security officer, which must have alarmed him and those around him. Both Crown counsel and Defence counsel have accepted that if persons commit a robbery or an attempted robbery with force, they must expect a custodial sentence.
The starting point in the first category of the Sentencing Guidelines is 12 months custody, which is, after a not-guilty plea and a trial.
If twelve (12) months custody is the appropriate starting point, I will reduce the Sentence by 3 months, to reflect the Defendant’s guilty plea, and impose a Sentence of nine (9) months imprisonment, with time spent in custody to be taken into consideration. Dated this the 16th day of March 2012 Honourable Mr. Justice Charles Quin Judge of the Grand Court