Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
  • About Us
    • Court Overview
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Past Chief Justices
      • Sir Hugh Rawlins
      • Sir Brian George Keith Alleyne
      • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Adrian Saunders
      • Hon. Sir Charles Michael Dennis Byron
      • Rt. Hon. Sir Vincent Floissac
      • Honourable Sir Lascelles Lister Robotham
      • More..
        • Hon. Neville Algernon Berridge
        • Sir Neville Peterkin
        • Sir Maurice Herbert Davis
        • Justice P. Cecil Lewis
        • Sir Allen Montgomery Lewis
    • Judicial Officers
      • Justices of Appeal
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Davidson Kelvin Baptiste
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Louise Esther Blenman
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Mario Michel
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Gertel Thom
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Paul Anthony Webster [Ag.]
      • High Court Judges
      • Masters
    • Court of Appeal Registry
    • Career Opportunities
    • Legal Internship
    • Court Connected Mediation
      • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Mediation Publications
    • Directory
  • Judgments
    • Privy Council
    • Caribbean Court of Justice
    • Court Of Appeal Judgments
    • High Court Judgments
    • Digests of Decisions
    • Country
      • Anguilla
      • Antigua & Barbuda
      • Grenada
      • Montserrat
      • Saint Kitts and Nevis
      • Saint lucia
      • Saint Vincent & The Grenadines
      • Territory of the Virgin Islands
    • Year
      • 1972 – 1990
        • 1972
        • 1973
        • 1975
        • 1987
        • 1989
        • 1990
      • 1991 – 2000
        • 1991
        • 1992
        • 1993
        • 1994
        • 1995
        • 1996
        • 1997
        • 1998
        • 1999
        • 2000
      • 2001 – 2010
        • 2001
        • 2002
        • 2003
        • 2004
        • 2005
        • 2006
        • 2007
        • 2008
        • 2009
        • 2010
      • 2011 – 2019
        • 2011
        • 2012
        • 2013
        • 2014
        • 2015
        • 2016
        • 2017
        • 2018
        • 2019
    • Judgment Focus
  • Sittings & Notices
    • Schedule of Sittings
    • Court of Appeal Sittings
    • Chamber Hearing (Appeals)
    • Case Management (Appeals)
    • High Court Sittings
    • Status Hearings
    • Special Sittings
    • Notices
  • Court Procedures & Rules
    • Civil Procedure Rules [WEB]
    • ECSC (Sittings of the Court) Rules, 2014
    • ECSC Civil Procedure Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to Nov 2015]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2014
      • ECSC Civil Procedure (Amendment) (No.2) Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to May 2014]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2011
    • ECSC Criminal Procedure Rules
      • Criminal Procedure Rules SI No. 22 of 2015
    • ECSC Sentencing Guidelines
    • Non-Contentious Probate & Administration of Estates Rules
    • Court of Appeal Rules
    • More..
      • Election Petition Rules
      • Legal Profession Disciplinary Procedure Rules (St. Lucia)
      • Code Of Judicial Conduct
      • Court Forms
        • Introduction of E-Filing
        • BVI Commercial Division E-Filing
        • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • SILK Application Procedure
      • Practice Directions
      • Practice Notes
  • News & Publications
    • ECSC Media Gallery
    • Annual Reports
    • Appeals Reports
    • Appointments
    • Press Releases
    • Papers & Presentation
      • Opening of the Law Year Addresses
    • Tributes
  • E-Litigation
    • E-Litigation Portal
    • E-Litigation Instructional Videos
    • ECSC E-Litigation Portal User Information
    • Electronic Litigation Filing and Service Procedure Rules
    • Notices of Commencement
    • E-Litigation Publications
  • J.E.I
    • Structure of JEI
    • JEI Chairman
    • Mandate, Objectives, Standards
    • JEI Programme
      • Conferences
      • Programmes & Projects
      • Symposiums
      • Training
      • Workshops
    • Upcoming Activities
more
    • About Us
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Mediation
    • Careers
  • Contact
  • Saved for Later
 Home  E-Litigation Portal
  •  Court Procedures And Rules
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Court Forms
    • Election Petition Rules
    • Practice Directions
  •  Judgments
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
    •  Digest of Decisions
  •  Sittings
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
  • Sign In
    
    Minimize Search Window
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Category {{SelectedFilters.length}}x Categories 
    •       {{item.title}} {{selectedCountries.length}}x Countries Country 
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Year {{selectedOptions.length}}x Options 
    
    Sorry can't find what you're looking for try adjusting your search terms
    Appeal
    {{doc._source.post_title}}
    Page {{indexVM.page}} of {{indexVM.pageCount}}
    pdf
    Home » Judgments » High Court Judgments » Director of Public Prosecution v Reece Walters

    EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

    SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS

    NEVIS CIRCUIT

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

    (CRIMINAL)

    Claim Number: NEVHCR2017/0003

    Between

    Director of Public Prosecution

    -and-

     

    Reece Walters

    Before: His Lordship Justice Ermin Moise

     

     

    Appearances:

    Mr. Teshaun Vasquez of counsel for the crown

    Ms. Marsha Henderson with Ms. Saundra Hector of counsel for the Defendant

    Defendant present

    ——————————————————

    2020: October, 19th

    ——————————————————

    Judgment on Sentencing

    1. On 3rd May, 2019, the defendant, Mr. Reece Walters, was
      found guilty of the murder of Shante Claxton (aged 15). The court
      ordered a pre-sentence report from the Department of Human Services
      prior to sentencing. However, upon receipt of the report, the court was
      of the view that a psychiatric report would be of some assistance in
      determining the appropriate sentence to be handed down in this case.
      This was based on certain information which emerged from the
      pre-sentence report. However, due to the challenges faced with the
      ongoing Covid19 pandemic, the psychiatrist was unable to complete the
      report for some time. He has now presented the report for the court’s
      consideration and for that we are thankful and fully appreciative of
      the circumstances which led to the delay in its delivery.

    The Facts

    1. Ms. Shantel Nisbett (Ms. Nisbett) is the mother of Shante Claxton
      (Shante). On 6th September, 2014 Shante was only 15 years old
      when she was found dead in a bathroom at the St. Thomas Primary School in
      the Parish of St. Thomas, Nevis. Ms. Nisbett states that on that date, at
      around 8:30am she was outside cleaning her yard and had a conversation with
      Shante. Shante went to get herself ready and eventually left for church.
      Ms. Nisbett realized that the usual time had passed and Shante did not
      return from church. It was her evidence that church normally ended at noon.
      This time had long passed and Shante did not return home. Ms. Nisbett
      called around to ask people if they had seen Shante, after which she got
      herself ready to attend a funeral.
    2. Ms. Nisbett stated in her evidence that whilst at the funeral she made
      further enquiries and found out that Shante had still not returned home.
      She called her father, Mr. Orville Hull, and her daughter Shanika and they
      went in search of Shante. She searched the beach and the school and didn’t
      find Shante. She met some “fellas” on the other side fixing something. She
      mentioned something to her daughter and they returned to the school. Whilst
      walking, her father came out and she spoke to him. He said that he had
      found Shante and started making calls. Ms. Nisbett did not see Shante
      herself. However, her father (Shante’s Grandfather), had the unfortunate
      experience of finding Shante dead on the bathroom floor of the school.

    3. According to Mr. Hull, during his search of the school, he came to a
      door which was not fully opened. It was kind of stiff so he took the end of
      his shirt and pushed the door. He then saw a hand and ventured further
      inside of the room. He saw Shante on the floor lying down. She was on her
      back. One of her hands was up and the other one was around the toilet. He
      looked further inside and saw Shante’s skirt was way up across her chest.
      There was blood coming from both her nose and mouth. I note at this point
      that a used condom was on the floor in the bathroom where Shante was found.
      Mr. Hull then went to find Ms. Nisbett who was outside on the streets. He
      tried to calm her down but she started to scream. He also indicated that he
      attended the autopsy.

    4. The autopsy was conducted by Dr. Valery Alexandrov. After examining
      Shante’s body on 13th September, 2014, he gave the cause of her
      death as acute oxygen deprivation as a result of asphyxia caused by manual
      compression of the major vital vascular channels of the neck, including the
      jugular veins and carotid arteries combined with compression and
      obstruction of the airways in manual strangulation. During the trial, Dr.
      Alexandrov went on to explain what he meant by these terms. He stated that
      manual strangulation is excessive compression of somebody’s neck by
      somebody’s hand or hands. His conclusions were based on the fact that the
      autopsy found classical symptoms of manual strangulation in that there were
      fingernail marks on the neck, hemorrhaging into the soft tissue of the neck
      and fractures of the thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone in the neck; among
      other things. Dr. Alexandrov gave an illustration of the hyoid bone and
      explained that even in death by hanging, this bone is not fractured. His
      opinion was that this can only happen if manual force is applied to that
      area, resulting in the fracture. Essentially this young lady was strangled
      to death in the bathroom of the St. Thomas Primary School.

    5. Mr. Walters was subsequently arrested for Shante’s death and whilst in
      police custody he gave a statement under caution. This was at his own
      instance as he indicated that “[he] just want to get it off [his] chest.” A
      second statement from the defendant was also video recorded. In that
      statement he confessed to having been in the school with Shante on that
      date. He however did not confess to murdering her. In his statement to the
      police he indicated that Shante agreed to meet with him at the St. Thomas
      Primary School on 6th September, 2014 at 9:00am. On his way home
      from work on that morning, he stopped at the school at about 9:15 to
      9:20am. She was inside of the school and they talked then went into the
      bathroom. They talked some more and started to get intimate. He put on his
      condom and as he was going to start having sex with her she started to
      tremble. She dropped on the ground so he started to panic. He went down on
      the ground with her and put his hand across her chest to see if she was
      still alive. He wasn’t feeling anything so he put his head on her chest. He
      didn’t hear a heartbeat so he started to panic, left the condom and ran. He
      ran through the cemetery. When he realized the bush was thick to go through
      he ran back and ran straight home. The following night he went to work
      thinking about the same incident. He wasn’t concentrating on his work. At
      the time of the interview Mr. Walters had a visible injury to his eye. He
      indicated that this was as a result of a broom which fell during the course
      of work and hit him in his eye.

    6. Intimate samples were taken from Mr. Walters and in the end an analyst
      determined that the DNA which was found on the used condom recovered from
      the scene matched that of Mr. Walters. DNA found under the Shante’s
      fingernails also matched that of the defendant. The jury determined that
      Mr. Walters was guilty of Shante’s murder.

    The Pre-Sentence Report

    1. During the interviews with the social case worker, Mr. Walters appeared
      to initially accept responsibility for what he had done. He stated that he
      “wished all this had never happened and that he was sorry that all that
      happened.” He went on to confess that he had met with Shante at the Primary
      School on that day but stated that it was a joint intention to engage in
      sexual intercourse. It is worth repeating that Shante was only 15 years old
      at the time. He told the social case worker that when they were having sex
      things got out of hand. When pressed as to what he meant he didn’t give a
      response. He went on to say that he did not remember everything as he was
      advised to block out everything from his head.
  • During the interview, Mr. Walters went on to change his story
    altogether. He stated that he was arrested by the police on 8th
    September, 2014 and taken to the police station at Cotton Ground. He said
    that he only gave the story to the police because they told him that if he
    did, he wouldn’t go to prison. He said he had no recollection of going to
    the school on 6th September, 2014 and that he was angry at the
    police for what they told him to do. He said he was also angry at himself
    for listening to them. He stated that he was forced into confessing to what
    he had said because he was told that Shante’s uncle would have killed him
    and that the police would allow it. According to the PSR Mr. Walters stated
    that he had never known Shante and had only seen her in town and never
    spoke to her at any time. He did not remember making any plans to meet with
    her at the school on the day of her murder.

  • Despite Mr. Walters’ account, his mother stated that she knew of a
    relationship between himself and Shante and that he would visit her home.
    The social case worker also interviewed one of Mr. Walters’ friends, Mr.
    Chris Jeffers who stated that Mr. Walters and Shante used to be friends.
    This is a fact which is denied by Shante’s family.

  • In the Pre-Sentence Report, the defendant was deemed to have been
    generally cooperative. Interviews were conducted with both of his parents
    as well as his grandmother. By all accounts, he was well loved by his
    family. His parents lived apart and he appears to have been helpful to both
    of them. His family expresses surprise that he would be involved in such an
    incident. He assists his father in caring for animals which he rears and
    his grandmother also refers to him as being respectful to her. He attends
    church services with her whenever she asks him to and she expressed shock
    that he would have committed such an offence.

  • Mr. Walters was not much of a performer at school. His grades were well
    below average and the school principal lamented the fact that he never
    appeared to take school work seriously. Some remedial work was done with
    him and he was able to complete up to form 4 at secondary school. He never
    wrote any examinations at CXC. The reasons given in the report was that he
    did not have the money to pay for them. Despite this, his behavior never
    appeared to be a problem. There is nothing in his history which points to
    violence or disobedience in any way.

  • Mr. Walters was described as being an athlete and a member of at least
    two athletic clubs in Nevis. One of his coaches interviewed said that he
    trained regularly but was never really focused. He always liked to clown
    around. The coach was nonetheless shocked that he would have committed such
    an offence. Mr. Walters also joined a local gym and the owner of the gym
    expressed surprise at the events which led to him being convicted. He was
    dedicated to this aspect of his life and looked up to the gym owner. He
    also had an interest in firefighting and volunteered with the local fire
    service on occasion. The reports indicate that by all accounts Mr. Walters
    was passionate about that kind of work and was well behaved in his
    performance when on duty.

  •  

    Victim Impact

    1. From the Pre-sentence report, the court is left in no doubt that the
      death of this young lady has caused a significant and tragic impact on her
      loved ones. By all accounts she was an intelligent young lady who had a
      promising future. Both of her parents spoke of her as a loving child who
      was well behaved and well loved by her family. Her grandfather had to
      suffer the indignity of finding her dead in the bathroom of this school
      with her underwear pulled down below her knees.
  • The evidence presented by the family also indicates that the day after
    Shante’s death, whilst in mourning, Mr. Walters went to the family home. At
    that time no one knew that he was the one responsible for Shante’s death.
    Shantel Nisbett states that her family has not been the same since then.
    Shante’s father has never been able to speak about the incident. He has
    stopped going to church because he is reminded of Shante’s grave whenever
    he does so. He stated that he “went to the scene right away where [he] saw
    [his] child’s lifeless body. Things are not the same since then. Everything
    changed. Everything went downhill.” He states that he no longer has the
    same relationship with his other children. He cannot accept that she is
    gone.

  • The family takes balloons to Shante’s grave every year on what would
    have been her birthday. Ms. Nisbett also states that she often wonders what
    Shante would have become in life. She had no known medical issues. She
    states that it’s very hard for her because her daughter is dead and Mr.
    Walters is in prison eating and drinking.

  • The family has also had to contend with Mr. Walters’ own explanation as
    to his relationship with Shante. His mother insisted that the two had a
    steady relationship and that Mr. Walters bought her gifts on occasion. She
    stated that Mr. Walters was known to Shante’s family and that he frequented
    the home. Ms. Nisbett denies this and states that Mr. Walters never
    frequented her home and that there was no ongoing relationship between the
    two. Mr. Walters denies some of what his mother had to say. However, in the
    end it must be observed that this was a 15 year old child. Mr. Walters was
    an adult and there is no excuse in law or otherwise for his contact with
    Shante on that day. Especially given the circumstances of his own
    explanation to the police.

  • The Psychiatrist’s Report

    1. Mr. Walters was deemed to have been generally cooperative in his
      engagement with the psychiatrist. Interviews were conducted with both of
      his parents as well as his grandmother, among other persons. As it relates
      to his attitude towards the offence for which he was convicted, the
      following passage form the psychiatrist’s report is of some assistance:


    Although Walters professes inability to recall the sequence of events
    which immediately preceded the death by strangulation of Shante
    Claxton, he accepts responsibility for the offence. He says he recalls
    the preliminaries before the initiation of the sex act. He recalls her
    giving him a condom which she had brought. While attempting to
    consummate the act, he recollects her telling him that she didn’t want
    to proceed with the act, and him enquiring why, a question to which he
    is not certain of what the response was. He says he complied with her
    request but told her that he didn’t want to be her friend anymore. He
    recalls her hitting him and him retaliating. From this point forward up
    to the point of his panicking and abandoning the scene in a state of
    confusion, he professes a blurry recollection. He believes there was a
    struggle of some sort. His blurry recollection of a segment of the
    encounter notwithstanding, he accepts responsibility for the homicide.
    He understands, he says the pain that the family must
    be enduring and wished there were a way for him to assuage their pain.

    1. Essentially, the defendant’s account of what transpired, as given to
      the psychiatrist goes somewhat further than what was initially contained in
      his statement to the police during the course of the investigation. It is
      also a retreat from his allegations to the social worker of being tricked
      into confessing by the police. However, although he gave some account of
      the events leading up to the actual death, he expressed an inability to
      recall the essential details of the actual murder. According to the
      psychiatrist Mr. Walters used words such as

      “…. just can’t remember.” “……like my mind was
      somewhere else.” “…..I don’t even know what I did”. “…..It
      just was not me,…like I gone somewhere else”. “…..I let my
      emotions get the better of me”. “…I remember she hitting me, I
      hit her back and then things just went off”. When asked whether she was
      screaming, he said “Yes, (long pause, then) ….I couldn’t really
      make out the words”

      .
  • The psychiatrist went on to state as follows:


  • He says he does not recall strangling her and that he has never before
    lost control to the extent that he was violent, not to mention
    dangerously violent, nor did he know himself to have had difficulty
    recalling details of any significant occurrence in his life. Over time
    he seems to vaguely recall, as I can best put together some of his
    disjointed responses and utterances, that he did not actually penetrate
    the deceased and that there was some sort of acrimonious exchange and a
    scuffle. He thinks she told him that she did not want to go through
    with the act anymore; that he asked her why; he is not certain what her
    response was, but he told her he did not want to be her friend anymore.
    He thinks he may have told her something hurtful – he is not certain;
    she hit him and he reciprocated. It is doubtful how much this
    disjointed account from his vague recollection can be relied upon, or
    whether it is confabulation (made up stories to fill in gaps of faulty
    memory), which occurs in various memory disorders and is different from
    deliberately lying. He compensated for his flawed memory also by
    repeating at several junctures “……one thing led to
    another”, endeavouring it seems to circumvent details.”

     

    1. Having examined what information was available regarding Mr. Walters’
      past medical history, the psychiatrist formed the opinion that

      “[h]is baseline mental state betrays no psychopathology or gross
      character flaws or personality disorder, and his social history do not
      seem to support a propensity for spontaneous or premeditated acts of
      aggression.”

      Further neurological evaluation has been recommended, given the initial
      evaluation of accounts of the defendant possibly suffering from epileptic
      seizures. The psychiatrist therefore noted that there is ”

      reasonable medical probability that at the time of commission of the
      criminal act Walters may have had no knowledge of the deed. In my
      opinion therefore it would be clinically prudent to further explore
      underlying causation of what might well be ictal (seizure induced)
      violence and post-ictal confusion.”

      Despite this however, the psychologist did not make any finding of a mental
      disorder which Mr. Walters is known to have suffered. Whilst this court
      will certainly take the recommendations into consideration as it relates to
      Mr. Walters’ rehabilitation, there is no doubt in my mind that he is
      responsible for his actions and ought therefore to face the consequences of
      what he has done. Based on the psychiatrists report Mr. Walters seemed to
      have remembered Shante screaming but could not make out the words she was
      saying. I also bear in mind his attempts to retract his story to the social
      case worker in stating that he was tricked into giving whatever information
      he had given to the police.

     

    Sentencing Guidelines

     

    1. Counsel appearing on both sides had initially filed submissions on
      sentencing. However, this was prior to the submission of the psychiatrist’s
      report as well as the court’s promulgation of the sentencing guidelines for
      murder. The crown in this case has not argued for the imposition of the
      death penalty and counsel on both sides did not wish to cross examine the
      psychiatrist or the social worker who represented the PSR. The crown sought
      a sentence of life imprisonment with a review to be conducted after 40
      years. Counsel for the defendant had initially argued that a determinate
      sentence of 18 years was reasonable in the circumstances, but conceded in
      exchange before the court that such a sentence would be too lenient in the
      circumstances.

     

    1. In considering the appropriate sentence to impose on the defendant the
      court must determine whether a whole life sentence or a determinate
      sentence is appropriate. Section 4 of the guidelines state as follows:

     



    4. The appropriate starting point is a whole life sentence if:

     



    a. the court considers that the seriousness of the offence (or the
    combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with
    it) is exceptionally high; and

     



    b. the offender was aged 18 or over when he committed the offence.

     

    1. Section 5 of the guidelines state that a murder involving sexual or
      sadistic conduct is one which is considered to be exceptionally high. In
      this case, the murder involved a sexual encounter between the defendant,
      who is an adult, and a 15 year old girl. Although he has insisted that they
      both agreed to the encounter, I take into consideration her age and the
      fact that she could not have consented as a matter of law. Even if the
      court were to take Mr. Walters’ explanation at its highest, he has
      suggested that there was resistance on her part to the encounter. She was
      left not only murdered, but with a serious violation of her dignity as a
      young female. Her grandfather and father also had to suffer the indignity
      of seeing her in that state with her skirt above her chest and her
      underwear down to her knees, along with a used condom lying on the floor
      next to her. It is unclear as to whether there was any penetration which
      took place. However, the condition in which she was found, coupled with the
      explanation given by the defendant, is sufficient to find that this murder
      took place with some connection to sexual or sadistic conduct.

     

    1. I therefore consider that this case is one in which the seriousness of
      the offence is exceptionally high. Although the guidelines would largely
      replace heavy reliance on previous case law, I would mention the cases of


      R. v. Pollard

      [1]



      and


      David Roberts v. The Queen

      [2]



      as cases in which courts have been prepared to proclaim a life sentence for
      death by strangulation when the murder is connected with a sexual offence
      against a vulnerable victim. I will examine these cases in detail later on
      in this judgment.
  • However, I also consider section 6 of the guidelines which states that
    the court may also impose a determinate sentence if it is of the view that
    the offence does not warrant a life sentence. Section 7 of the guidelines
    also states that a determinate sentence may be imposed where the murder
    involving a lesser degree of sexual or sadistic conduct than referred to
    above. The question is whether the nature of the sexual conduct in this
    case, when considered in light of the other facts surrounding the murder,
    is such that it does not warrant that the defendant be imprisoned for life.

  •  

    1. I am not of the view that the nature of the sexual conduct reduces this
      case to one of a determinate sentence. It is true that one can well imagine
      a more sadistic and egregious sexual violation. However, I do find that the
      age of this victim weighs heavily on the court’s mind. This was a 15 year
      old girl cut down in the prime of her youth. The evidence suggests that she
      tried to fight off Mr. Walters and resist the sexual encounter. His DNA was
      found beneath her fingernails. In addition to that, the evidence of the
      pathologist described the manner of death as one which would have had
      significant force being applied to this child’s neck. Mr. Walters himself
      confirmed in his interview with the psychiatrist that he heard her
      screaming but could not make out the words she was saying. It would
      certainly be difficult for one to have to imagine what this child must have
      been going through while being strangled to death in that way when an
      attempt had been made to violate her sexually. I would therefore not reduce
      this sentence from that of life. I would however consider the aggravating
      and mitigating factors of this case in order to further explain the court’s
      decision and also to consider an appropriate time frame within which Mr.
      Walters’ sentence is to be reviewed.

     

    1. The mitigating factors in this case are as follows:

     

    (a) The defendant is of previous good character. Not only does he not have
    any previous convictions, but, by all accounts, he was well liked by his
    family and friends. He had not shown any previous propensity to violence as
    has been highlighted by both the PSR and the psychiatrist’s report. His
    behavior at school was not delinquent, save for his lack of interest in
    school work. Those who interacted with him in the sports clubs, gym and
    fire service express shock that he would commit such an offence;

     

    (b) There is no evidence of premeditation as it relates to this murder.

     

    (c) The defendant has shown some measure of remorse. He has offered an
    apology for what he has done and has expressed regret. He did however, put
    the court and the family of the victim through an entire trial and sought
    to recant his story in his interview with the social worker. The court will
    nonetheless consider his expression of remorse as a matter to be weighed in
    his favour.

     

    1. I consider the aggravating factors to be as follows:

    (a) The age of the victim. As I have stated this was a 15 year old child.

     

    (b) The fact that this murder was associated with sexual conduct. It is
    difficult to reconcile the truth behind what Mr. Walters has said about his
    interactions with Shante so far. However, what must be noted is that this
    child could not have consented to any form of sexual connection with Mr.
    Walters. Even if the court were to take his version at its highest, the
    facts are compounded by the fact that Shante expressed a desire not to have
    sexual intercourse with him and for this she eventually lost her life.

     

    (c) The nature of the murder itself. Shante was strangled with such force
    that one of the major bones in her neck was broken.

     

    (d) That Shante was left in the bathroom with her skirt up to her chest and
    her underwear down to her knees with a used condom nearby. This was a
    rather undignified way for her family to have found her. Not only was her
    life taken away from her, but her dignity was violated;

     

    (e) This offence also took place in a primary school. Had Shante not been
    found on that afternoon one can well imagine the horror of what could have
    occurred in that school on a Monday 8th September, 2014.

     

    (f) That the day after the murder, Mr. Walters visited Shante’s family’s
    home. He went there along with her uncle. The family did not know at the
    time that he had been responsible for her death and even exchanged
    pleasantries with him.

     

    1. Taking these circumstances into account I am of the view that the
      aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors in this case. I would
      therefore not reduce the defendant’s sentence from one of life in prison to
      a determinate sentence. However, it is my view that I must go on to
      consider a minimum term which Mr. Walters should serve before being
      considered for early release. I say so as I find authority for this
      position from the decision of the CCJ in the case of Renaldo Alleyne v. The Queen

      [3]

      .
      In that case the court came to consider a number of issues as it relates to
      the imposition of a life sentence upon an offender. After drawing reference
      from a number of cases from various Caribbean jurisdictions, including that
      of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, the court concluded that:

    (a) The principles of rehabilitation, retribution, deterrence and
    prevention all remain relevant in coming to an appropriate sentence,
    including cases were a life sentence may be imposed;

     

    (b) That the principles of deterrence and prevention may be overriding in
    the peculiar facts of the case so as to warrant the imposition of a life
    sentence, regardless of the defendant’s prospects of rehabilitation;

     

    (c) However, a whole life sentence does not mean that the convict should
    literally spend the rest of his natural life in prison. I do take into
    account the fact that the guidelines introduced by the Eastern Caribbean
    Supreme Court ascribe a specific meaning to whole life sentences. However,
    I do not take this definition to mean that the intention of the guidelines
    is to overturn the authority of the court in setting a minimum tariff in
    order to consider whether a defendant sentenced to life in prison may be
    properly rehabilitated so as to be returned to society in the future;

     

    (d) That when imposing a life sentence, a sentencing judge has not only the
    authority, but the responsibility to recommend a tariff or a minimum period
    of incarceration to be served for the purpose of prevention and deterrence.

     

    1. There is no provision in legislation in Saint Christopher and Nevis for
      the parole of individuals serving prison sentences. In light of that I
      consider the decision of Renaldo Alleyne v. The Queen where it states that
      in such circumstances a defendant who has been sentenced to prison for life
      should have his sentence reviewed by the court after a reasonable period to
      determine whether he had been properly rehabilitated and fit to return to
      society. The CCJ considered information regarding the range of time served
      by persons in Barbados who had had their life sentences reviewed. These
      ranged from 8 to 33 years. The court could not find any consistency in the
      manner in which these minimum periods of incarceration were determined. It
      would in some measure depend on the individual facts of the case and the
      extent of the defendant’s own prospects of rehabilitation.

     

    1. Insofar as that is the case, I would consider the recommendations of
      the psychiatrist and the social worker and find that the defendant has
      reasonable prospects for rehabilitation. However, in my view I would weigh
      prevention and deterrence very heavily in the imposition of the life
      sentence as well as the minimum period of incarceration before a review can
      be done. This involves the strangulation of a 15 year old child in
      circumstances where the defendant, who was 21 years old at the time,
      attempted to have sexual intercourse with her. The court should send as
      strong a message as it possibly can, that this would not be tolerated in
      our society whilst balancing the defendant’s own prospects of
      rehabilitation.

     

    1. The crown referred the court to the case of R. v. Pollard (above) where the defendant was
      sentenced to life in prison for sexually assaulting and strangling a 13
      year old girl. In that case there was found to be evidence of breach of
      trust as the defendant was the partner of the child’s mother. He also made
      an attempt to make the scene look like that of a suicide. He had no
      convictions and did plead guilty to the offence. Despite the imposition of
      a life sentence the court imposed a minimum term of 21 years before
      consideration of early release. I do appreciate that there are
      distinguishing elements to the present case. The relationship of trust in Pollard does not exist in this case and it is one
      which emerges from a jurisdiction foreign to our own, with its own
      legislative considerations. However, I also note that Mr. Walters did not
      plead guilty to the offence.

     

    1. The Crown also referred the court to the case of David Roberts v. The Queen

      [4]

      where a defendant was also sentenced to life in prison for the
      strangulation of a 75 year old woman who was blind. There was also a sexual
      offence committed in the process of this murder. This case emerged form one
      of our own jurisdictions and I do find it a useful guide in determining an
      appropriate sentence in the present case.

     

    1. Having considered these authorities I also give further consideration
      to the guidelines established by own court. In Pollard, the English courts considered the
      starting point for sentences for murder in coming to a minimum period which
      the defendant must serve. That starting point was 30 years. Taking into
      account the balance between the aggravating and mitigating factors, the
      court set a tariff of 21 years which was an increase from the 16 years
      initially set by the trial judge. In our own sentencing guidelines the
      starting point has increased to 40 years from the 30 year period previously
      adopted by the courts. Taking into account the mitigating factors which I
      have referred to, I am of the view that a period of 30 years is a
      reasonable time within which the objectives of deterrence and prevention
      can be met in this case. At that point the defendant’s sentence may be
      reviewed by the court so as to determine whether he is sufficiently
      rehabilitated in order to return to society. This review is to be done by
      the court, unless a parole board or other like institution is established
      by that date.
  • I would also order that the defendant be periodically evaluated by a
    psychologist and that where recommended, neurological examination also be
    conducted so as to ensure that any such issues which he may have be
    addressed before he is considered for release. These examinations should
    take place at four year intervals, unless the professionals are of the view
    that more frequent sessions are necessary.

  • The defendant is therefore sentenced as follows:

  • (a) Life Imprisonment;

    (b) That he must serve a minimum of 30 years before a review of his
    sentence is to be conducted by the court to determine whether he is
    sufficiently rehabilitated for reintegration into society. If the
    legislature of Saint Christopher and Nevis has subsequently made adequate
    provision for the establishment of a parole board or similar institution,
    the defendant’s sentence may be reviewed in accordance with those
    provisions;

    (c) That during this period the defendant is to be assessed by a mental
    health practitioner at least every four years, or more frequently if
    recommended by the health professionals;

    (d) The time spent on remand will count towards the computation of the 30
    year period.

    Ermin Moise

    High Court Judge

    By the Court

    Registrar




    [1]

    [2007] ECWA Crim 965


    [2]

    HCRAP2008/0008


    [3]

    [3] [2019] CCJ 06


    [4]

    HCRAP2008/0008

    /director-of-public-prosecution-v-reece-walters-2/
     Prev
    ECSC Tribute to Mr. Irvin Ferdinand
    Next 
    Nicholas James Gronow et al v Joshua James Taylor
    Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court

    2nd Floor Heraldine Rock Building
    Waterfront
    P.O. Box 1093
    Castries
    Saint Lucia
    T: +1 758 457 3600
    E: offices@eccourts.org

    • About Us
      • Court Overview
      • Career Opportunities
      • Directory
      • Privacy Policy
    • Judgments
      • Court Of Appeal
      • High Court
    • Sittings
      • Chamber Hearing
      • Court of Appeal
      • High Court
    • News & Updates
      • Appointments
      • Press Releases
    • Civil Procedure Rules
      • Court Forms
      • Practice Directions
    © 2021 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. All Rights Reserved

    Submit your email address and name to subscribe for email notifcations.

    [email-subscribers-advanced-form id="1"]
    Bookmark
    Remove Item
    Sign in to continue
    or

    Bookmarked Items
    •  Home
    • Judgments
    • Sittings
    •  News
    •  more