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, 19^th

——————————————————

Judgment on Sentencing

1. On 3^rd 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 6^th 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 13^th 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 6^th 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.

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 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”
   
   .

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.

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 8^th 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.

(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