The King v Desron Thomas

• Jurisdiction: Grenada
• Court: High Court (Grenada)
• Judge: Innocent, J.
• Judgment Date: 23 January 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J0123-3
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: CASE NO. GDAHCR2020/0033

Between:

The King

and

Desron Thomas

CASE NO. GDAHCR2020/0033

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA

AND IN THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CRIMINAL)

Appearances:

Mr. Jordan Marshall, Crown Counsel for the Crown

Mr. Ruggles Fergusson KC of Counsel for the Defendant

SENTENCING JUDGMENT

Innocent, J.

1 Before giving consideration to the question of the appropriate sentence to impose in the present case, the court thinks it necessary to chronicle the procedural history of this matter. In this way, the sentencing exercise will be placed within its proper context.

2 The defendant was arrested on 18 ^th October 2018. It appears from the record of the proceedings that the matter had proceeded through the Magistrates' Court by way of paper committal. The defendant was committed to stand trial 11 ^th February 2020.

3 By an indictment dated and filed 21 ^st August 2020, the defendant was charged with the single count of Manslaughter by causing death by unlawful harm contrary to section 232(2) of the Criminal Code as enacted by section 41 of the Criminal Code ( Amendment) Act, 2012 and section 237 of the Criminal Code relative to events that occurred on 12 ^th October 2018.

4 The defendant was arraigned on 2 ^nd October 2020 and he entered a plea of not guilty to the single count of Manslaughter contained in the indictment. The matter was adjourned on several occasions thereafter owing to outstanding procedural and evidential matters affecting both the defendant and the prosecution respectively.

5 On 24 ^th March 2021, the defendant filed a request for sentence indication seeking an indication from the Court as to the likely maximum sentence that would be imposed on him if he pleaded guilty at that stage of the proceedings. The defendant also filed his submissions relative to the request for sentence indication on even date.

6 An order was made on 26 ^th March 2021, for the production of a Social Inquiry Report to the Court along with the defendant's antecedent history. The matter was then adjourned to 18 ^th June 2021 for the hearing of the sentence indication. It appears from the record that the Social Inquiry Report remained outstanding for some time. The Social Inquiry Report was eventually submitted to the Court on 22 ^nd November 2021. A record of the defendant's previous convictions dated 16 ^th February 2021 was also placed before the Court.

7 When the matter came on for hearing on 18 ^th June 2021, the Court ordered the parties to file an agreed statement of facts on or before 30 ^th June 2021. The matter was adjourned to 2 ^nd July 2021 for the court's consideration of the sentence indication.

8 There appears to be no record of what transpired on 2 ^nd July 2021 or whether there were any court proceedings in the matter on that date. However, the record of proceedings reflects that the matter came on for hearing on 18 ^th January 2022, and was adjourned to 27 ^th January 2022, upon the prosecution giving the Court the undertaking that the statement of agreed facts would be filed in short order.

9 When the matter came on for hearing on 27 ^th January 2022, the prosecution informed the Court that the defence and prosecution were unable to agree on the facts that would form the basis of the plea on the hearing of the sentence indication. The Court then adjourned the matter to 25 ^th February 2022 for the hearing of the sentence indication.

10 On 25 ^th February 2022, the record of proceedings shows that the prosecution and defence were still unable to file a statement of agreed facts. Consequently, the matter was adjourned to 7 ^th November 2022 for trial.

11 It is not possible to glean from the record of the proceedings what transpired on 7 ^th November 2022 or whether there were any proceedings in the matter on that date. The record only reflects that the matter again came on for hearing before this Court as presently constituted on 8 ^th February 2024. There is no indication on the record as to what transpired in the case between 7 ^th November 2022 and 8 ^th February 2024.

12 When the matter came before the Court on 8 ^th February 2024, the defendant did not appear not having been notified of the day's proceedings. It appeared to the Court at that stage that there has been some inclination towards seeking a sentence indication and the court invited counsel in the matter to address it relative to this outstanding issue. Counsel for the defendant with the concurrence of counsel for the prosecution indicated that the defendant was still disposed to pursuing the application for sentence indication. Accordingly, the Court gave directions for a Goodyear hearing and the matter was adjourned to 23 ^rd February 2024. It appears that the matter did not proceed on 23 ^rd February 2024.

13 However, on 22 ^nd February 2024, the defendant filed a certificate confirming instructions to his legal practitioner to seek a sentence indication. An agreed statement of facts was filed by the parties on 16 ^th February 2024.

14 However, the matter again came on for hearing on 1 ^st March 2024. On this occasion, the court noted that in its view, and having reviewed the matter, there was a serious question of fact arising in relation to the issues of causation, and the lawfulness or justification of the conduct giving rise to the charge of Manslaughter which was entirely a matter for a jury; and that in all the circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate for the court to consider an application for sentence indication in relation to the defendant although it was open to the defendant voluntarily chose to do so, was his right. The matter was then adjourned to 25 ^th March 2024 for report and or fixture for trial.

15 On 25 ^th March 2024, the defendant appeared and the matter was adjourned to 3 ^rd May 2024 for further case management. For reasons unrelated to the present matter there was an interruption in court proceedings which resulted in the matter not coming on for hearing for some time until 13 ^th June 2024. On that date counsel appearing for the Crown informed the court that a Notice of Additional Evidence relative to the additional report of Dr. Alvarez was filed on 28 ^th May 2024 and served on counsel for the defendant. The matter was then adjourned to 17 ^th June 2024. On 17 ^th June 2024, at the request of counsel the matter was adjourned to 24 ^th June 2024. On 24 ^th June 2024, the matter was adjourned to 18 ^th July 2024 for the hearing of the sentence indication. The prosecution was ordered to file its submissions by 15 ^th July 2024.

16 The defendant's application for a sentence indication was heard on 18 ^th July 2024 and the court reserved its decision to 17 ^th September 2024. On 17 ^th September 2024, the court gave its oral reasons for having made the decision to defer giving a sentence indication at that stage of the proceedings. The reasons for the court's decision were ostensibly that the question of causation arising in the case needed to be resolved and that it appeared from the agreed statement of facts filed that there was still a dispute between the parties relative to that issue which could only be resolved at trial before a jury. In the circumstances, the matter was adjourned for trial to 25 ^th November 2024. The court left it open to the defendant to renew his application for a sentence indication at any later stage of the proceedings.

17 The prosecution subsequently filed a new indictment on 2 ^nd December 2024. This new indictment contained two counts; the first count charged the offence of Manslaughter and the second count charged the defendant with the offence of intentionally and unlawfully causing Grievous Harm contrary to section 207 of the Criminal Code as enacted by section 34 of the Criminal Code (Amendment) Act. The prosecution inevitably withdrew the initial indictment filed on 21 ^st August 2020.

18 At this juncture in the proceedings, counsel appearing for the defendant sought leave of the court to have the defendant arraigned on the new indictment. The defendant was arraigned, and upon his arraignment entered the plea of not guilty to Manslaughter and a plea of guilty to Grievous Harm. The Crown accepted the plea of guilty to Grievous Harm and withdrew the count relative to the offence of Manslaughter. The parties were directed to file an Agreed Statement of Facts setting out the basis of the plea together with written submissions by 12 ^th December 2024. The matter was adjourned to 13 ^th December 2024 for sentencing hearing.

19 On 13 ^th December 2024, the sentencing hearing was adjourned to 16 ^th December 2024 due to the unavailability of counsel for the prosecution. On 16 ^th December 2024, the court heard the oral submissions of respective counsel on sentencing. The court also had the benefit of counsels' written submissions. The court having made certain inquiries from counsel on both sides relative to certain issues concerning the appropriate sentence to be imposed adjourned the sentencing hearing to 20 ^th December 2024. On 20 ^th December 2024, the court having heard further submissions from counsel on both sides relative to sentence reserved the court's sentencing decision until 23 ^rd January 2025.

The basis of the plea

20 The agreed statement of facts filed by the parties on 12 ^th December 2024 sets out the basis of the defendant's plea to the offence of Grievous Harm. A summary of the agreed facts that is relevant to the sentencing exercise are set out below.

21 At the material time, that is, on 28 ^th June 2018, the deceased, who was then 72 years old, resided in a galvanized shed located on a beach in Palmiste in the Parish of Saint John.

22 The defendant at that time was in the company of his friends at Gouyave attending the fishermen's birthday celebrations. They all drank and partied during their attendance at the celebrations. Sometime between 9 pm and 10 pm that night, the defendant left the company of...