Chadwick P, Mottley JA, Vos JA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2008
IND No. 28(B)/08
C# 02018/08
BETWEEN:
LEON HYDES
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
BEFORE: THE RT. HON. SIR JOHN CHADWICK P.
THE HON. MR. JUSTICE MOTTLEY J.A.
THE HON. MR. JUSTICE VOS J.A.
Reasons for Judgment delivered orally on 2 September 2009
APPEARANCES:
Mr. N. Dixey
for the Appellant
Ms. N. Moore
for the Respondent
Ruling -- Chadwick P.
THEIR LORDSHIPS' RULING
Chadwick P.
The appellant, Leon Hydes, was convicted on 3 October 2008 of an offence of possession of an unlicensed firearm. He pleaded guilty to that offence. He was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.
A firearms offence of this nature carries a mandatory minimum sentence under section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Law enacted on 7 February 2008. Section 39(2) provides that, where an individual pleads guilty and is convicted, a sentence of at least seven years' imprisonment is to be imposed on him; in any other case -- that is a case where he is convicted after a trial -- a term of at least ten years is to be imposed on him unless the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which justify its not doing so. It is not suggested that there were exceptional circumstances in this case.
Section 39(2) gives effect to the
Ruling -- Chadwick P.
principle that, on a guilty plea, the offender can expect a discount from the sentence that would have been passed on a conviction after a contested trial. That statutory discount on the minimum sentence is three years off ten; some thirty percent. But that, of course, is subject to two qualifications. First of all, there is no automatic discount of thirty percent, or any other proportion; and, second, the ten-year sentence is, itself, a minimum sentence and not necessarily an appropriate starting point in the circumstances of any particular case.
In this case, the firearm was found hidden in a sock in the defendant's possession. It was a handgun and it was loaded. The defendant said that it had been given to him to look after in a box and that he had thought that it was ganja. But we were told by the Crown that examination of the weapon showed DNA traceable to the defendant on the weapon; in particular, on the grip of the pistol, the slide, on the magazine.
The defendant has not volunteered information to identify the person whom the gun
Ruling -- Chadwick P.
was given into his possession. He has offered no explanation as to why, having discovered a gun which was loaded, he did not immediately turn it in to the police.
In those circumstances, it seems to us that on a guilty plea this defendant could appropriately have been sentenced to a term of eleven or twelve years. There were aggravating circumstances which remained unexplained; or, to put the point another way, the defendant did not choose to put the Court in possession of all that it needed to know in order to pass a minimum sentence.
It is accepted by his counsel that, had the starting point been eleven years, a sentence of eight years could not be criticized. Even if the starting point were ten years, the statutory minimum, it seems to us impossible to say that a sentence of eight years was manifestly excessive in circumstances where the statutory minimum on a guilty plea was seven years. But, as I have indicated, it seems to us that on the facts of this case the judge was fully entitled to impose a sentence of eight years and there is no ground on which
Ruling -- Chadwick P.
this Court would interfere on the basis that that sentence was excessive; let alone manifestly excessive.
For those reasons, this appeal will be dismissed and the sentence of eight years is confirmed. Time served to be taken into consideration in the case.
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
Certified correct to the best of my skill and ability, dated the 4th day of September 2009.