SAINT LUCIA
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(CRIMINAL)
CRIMINAL CASE NO. SLUCRD2012/0667
BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN
and
MICHAEL EDMUNDS
Appearances:
Mr. Lean France for the Claimant
Mr. Leslie Prospere for the Defendant
2016: December 16.
JUDGMENT ON SENTENCING
Claimant
Defendant
[1] CUMBERBATCH, J.: The Defendant was indicted by the Director of Public Prosecution for the
offence of Murder contrary to section 85(a) of the Criminal Code 2008 for that he on the 28th
February 2012 at High Street in the Quarter of Dennery intending to cause death did cause the
death of Llewelyn Gordon Alexander (‘the Deceased’). At his arraignment the Defendant entered a
plea of not guilty. However after much toing and froing he entered a plea of guilty to manslaughter
by virtue of diminished responsibility. After the allocutus the court ordered a Pre-Sentenced Report
and Psychiatric evaluation be prepared.
THE FACTS
[2] On Monday 27th February 2012 the Defendant was at Abo’s Bar by the Dennery Beach. He was
involved in an argument with one Tarshe and was asked to leave the premises. At around
1
11 :OOp.m. he went to the B. H. bar and was involved in a conversation with the Deceased. At
around 1 :00 a.m. he was seen carrying a piece of bamboo. He shouted to the Deceased ‘papa I
killing you tonight’. He then struck the Deceased 4 times on his head with the bamboo after which
he placed it in a gutter and left the scene.
[3] The Defendant proceeded to the Dennery Police Station where he told the police ‘I just finish kill a
man there by Mr. Artif if you all want to go and see him.’ He later told the pol ice that he asked the
Deceased for money to buy bread and corned beef but the Deceased struck him with a stick and
told him “move his ass from there”. He saw a piece of bamboo and used same to strike the
Deceased 4 times but was not sure on what part of his body he hit the Deceased. Dr. Stephen
King who performed a Post Mortem Examination on the body of the Deceased found the cause of
death to be brain damage secondary to blunt force trauma.
THE PRE-SENTENCE REPORT
[4] The Defendant grew up with his parents who were banana farmers. They struggled within the
limits of their small income to provide for him and his siblings. However the Defendant and his
siblings were raised with good morals and values.
[5] His mother stated that during the Defendant’s late teenage years she observed signs of mental
illness in him. As a result of his erratic behavior he was admitted to the Wellness Centre on
several occasions. She further stated that the Defendant has caused her and other fami ly
members to remove from the family home. The Defendant was prior to the commission of th is
offence its sole occupant.
[6] Community residents describe the Defendant as a good person who is not known for getting into
flights or trouble. However some persons have expressed reservations about their safety after this
incident. They opine that they feel unsafe with the Defendant who is mentally ill and killed
someone for no reason.
2
[7] Apart from the Defendant’s mother no other family member has expressed their views of the
Defendant nor has anyone offered assistance to him on his released from the Bordelais
Correctional Facility.
THE PSYCHIATRIC REPORT
[8] This report reveals that the Defendant has been a patient of the psychiatric services of this country
since around the year 1997. He is diagnosed with schizophrenia and poly substance (cannabis
and cocaine) abuse. At his last examination he displayed no psychotic features. The doctor
further recommended that the Defendant continues to receive psychiatric care and antipsychotic
medication.
THE LAW
[9] A useful starting point would be to determine the aggravating and mitigating factors herein. I find
that in the case at bar the court ought not to embark on a consideration of the classical principles of
sentencing. The decision of the court in S v Shapiro (1987) 1 SA 940 is most instructive on this
point to wit:
“There can be no doubt that the community must view this crime with abhorrence. I do not
believe however that right thinking men would demand condign punishment in a case
where the accused acted with substantially diminished responsibility. I do not think that in
light of the finding of diminished responsibility this case is one which is clamant for
retribution. “
[1 0] I will however apply the principles of rehabilitation herein.
[11] I find the following to be the aggravating and mitigating factors herein:
AGGRAVATING FACTORS
1. The attack on the Deceased was unprovoked and unjustified,
2. The severity of the attack,
3. The Deceased was unarmed and seemingly unprepared for the Defendant’s attack,
4. The prevalence of the offence of homicide.
MITIGATING FACTORS
1. The Defendant’s guilty plea,
2. The Defendant’s mental health illness,
3
3. The Defendant is remorseful.
[12] After conducting a balancing exercise of the aggravating and mitigating factors I find that the
aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating ones.
SENTENCE
[13] Section 90 of the Criminal Code provides:
“1. If a person kills or is a party to the killing of another person, he or she shall not be
convicted of murder if he or she was suffering from such mental disorder (whether arising
from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or
induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his or her mental responsibility for
his ore acts in doing or being a party to the killing.
2. On a charge of murder, it shall be for the defence to prove that the person charged is by
virtue of this section not liable to be convicted of murder.
3 A person who but for this section would be liable to be convicted of murder shall be liable
to be convicted of manslaughter.
4. The fact that one party to a killing is by virtue of this section not liable to be convicted of
murder shall not affect the question whether the killing amounted to murder in the case of
any other party to the killing.
[14] The term mental disorder is defined in the interpretation section of the Criminal Code as;
“mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder and
any other disorder or disability of mind, except intoxication.”
[15] The psychiatric report reveals that the Defendant has been a patient of this country’s psychiatric
facilities since around 1997. This provides more than ample reason for the crown to accept the
plea of diminished responsibility.
[16] The dictum of Leonard J in R v Chambers (1983) 5 Cr. App. R (s) 190 is most instructive in the
determination of an appropriate sentence to wit;
“In diminished responsibility cases there a various courses open to a judge. His choice of
the right course will depend on the state of the evidence and the material before him. If the
psychiatric reports recommend and justify it, and there are no contrary indications, he will
make a hospital order. Where a hospital order is not recommended, or is not appropriate,
4
and the defendant constitutes a danger to the public for and unpredictable period of time,
the right sentence will, in all probability, be one of life imprisonment.
In cases where the evidence indicated that the accused’s responsibility for his acts was so
grossly impaired that his degree of responsibility for them was minimal, then a lenient
course will be open to the judge. Provided there is no danger of repetition of violence, it
will usually be possible to make such an order as will give the accused his freedom
possibly with some supervision.
There will however be cases in which there is no proper basis for a hospital order; but in
which the accused’s degree of responsibility is not minimal. In such cases the judge
should pass a determinate sentence of imprisonment, the length of which will depend on
two factors: his assessment of the degree of the accused’s responsibility and his view as
to the period of time, if any, for which the accused will continue to be a danger to the
public.”
[17] In R v Slater Auld LJ made the following observations:
“Assessing the form and severity of sentence in manslaughter cases by reason of
diminished responsibility is notoriously difficult. So many factors often contribute to the
death: the relationship of the parties one to the other, the strains if any imposed on the
relationship, the degree of diminution of the defendant’s responsibility or blameworthiness
for the death by reason of his or her abnormality of the mind, the deliberation or otherwise
of the fatal attack and the brutality with which it is conducted and the defendant’s attributed
to and/or appreciation of the enormity of what he or she has done. These and other
factors invariably call for a balance of considerations between fixing on a disposal that
reflects the moderating circumstances and their degree of the offence, differentiating it
from murder, and those that identify nevertheless serious culpability, calling for mark by
the Court of public disapproval and imposition of punishment.”
[18] In the decision of Benjamin J (as he then was) in the Queen v Andrew Kagan Richardson the
Leaned Trial Judge undertook a distillation of the principles which ought to guide the sentencer in a
case of diminished responsibility. He opined thus:
i. the Court must obtain and take into account the expert medical reports and the
presentence report;
ii. The offender must be dealt with in the manner the Court deems to be most appropriate
in all the circumstances of the case;
iii. Consideration must be given to the seriousness of the offence;
iv. Any possibility of the need to protect the public from serious harm by the offender in
cases of violent (or sexual) crime must be considered;
5
———————— —- — — –
v. The rehabilitation of the offender is to be treated as a primary objective of sentencing;
vi. In appropriate cases, the Court can consider a non-custodial sentence;
vii. The Court must weigh the likely effect of a custodial sentence on the condition of the
offender and on the treatment of the offender;
viii. The seriousness of the punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the
offence; and
ix. The Court can impose a term longer than is commensurate with the seriousness of the
offence including an indeterminate term where the protection of the pubic from serious
harm the offender is in its opinion required provided that its opinion is so stated in
open Court and explained to the offender in ordinary language.
[20] The Court is required to consider all the facts and circumstances of this case and assess the
defendant’s blameworthiness or culpability. In so doing the court must balance the seriousness of
the offence with the effects of the mental disorder suffered by the defendant and accordingly
determine the level of residual responsibility left in him. Accordingly his mental disorder though a
mitigating factor does not absolve him of responsibility of his actions. The court must also consider
whether the defendant poses a danger to the public.
[21] The Defendant took the life of the unsuspecting Deceased who was 71 years old and well
respected in the community. He received blows to the head by the Defendant with a piece of
bamboo who thereafter went to the police and reported what he has done.
[22] lt is common ground that the Defendant is now on medication within the confines of a controlled
environment. I find that his current situation contributes to his stable condition. Notwithstanding
this however he still harbors the bizarre belief that in killing the Deceased he acted in self defence
as he feels the Deceased would have killed him given the chance to do so.
[23] I find in the circumstances that the Defendant’s culpability is not minimal. Community residents
consider him a threat to their safety and prior to this event the Defendant’s family members
deserted the family home leaving him to reside therein alone. This was as a result of him
constantly throwing their possessions out of the house and frequent quarrels with family members.
Indeed the Pre-Sentence Report is totally bereft of offers of assistance from any of the Defendant’s
6
family members to see him through his rehabilitation and reintegration to the society. Accordingly I
find the Defendant to be a danger to the community.
[24] Sections 1099 (3) & (5) of the Criminal Code 2008 provide thus;
“(3) Before passing a custodial sentence other than one fixed by law on an offender who is or
appears to be mentally disordered, a Court shall consider-
(a) any information before it which relates to the offender’s mental condition (whether
given in a medical report, a pre-sentence report or otherwise); and
(b) the likely effect of such a sentence on that condition and on any treatment which
may be available for it.
(5) In this section-
“medical report” means a report as to an offender’s mental condition made or
submitted orally or in writing by a qualified registered medical practitioner;
“qualified” in relation to a registered medical practitioner, means appearing to the
Court to have special knowledge and experience of cases of mental disorder. “
[25] Section 1100 (3) of the said Code provides thus;
“(3) Nothing in this Code-
(a) requires a Court to pass a custodial sentence, or any particular custodial
sentence, on a mentally disordered offender; or
(b) restricts any power which enables a Court to deal with a mentally disordered
offender in the manner the Court considers to be most appropriate in all the
circumstances.”
[26] Parliament has by the aforesaid provisions provided the court with a wide range of options in
sentencing an offender who is mentally disordered. Regrettably however the court is unable to
impose a hospital order because of the absence of secure facilities at the Wellness Centre. Hence
the court must seek other options to ensure the safety of the community from another act of
homicide by this Defendant.
SENTENCE
[27] Thus the Defendant will be held at the Bordelais Correctional Facility at the court’s pleasure. He
shall be held for at least 10 years before he is brought to the High Court for a review of his
condition. He shall be released upon the Court being satisfied that he no longer poses a threat to
7
his family member and community. He shall also be placed under the supervision of a responsible
adult person who shall ensure that he takes his medication as prescribed and attends outpatients
clin ic when required to do so.
[28] He shall receive periodic visits by the consultant psychiatric at the Bordelais Correctional Facility
who shall provide the court with annual reports of his progress.
[29] He shall receive counselling for his drug use and shall be enrolled in all relevant pro rams for his
rehabilitation .
8