Williams F J
________________________________________________________________________________ Judgment: Application to withdraw guilty plea. R v. Forbes (Rayal Benson)) Ind. 66/2020. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 24th June 2021. Page 1 of 16 1 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 2 CRIMINAL SIDE 3 4 INDICTMENT NO: 0066/2020 5 6 7 REGINA 8 9 v. 10 11 RAYAL BENSON FORBES 12 13 14 Appearances: Mr. Neil Kumar for the Crown 15 16 Mr. Keith Myers for the Defendant 17 18 Before: Justice Frank Williams (Actg.) 19 Application Heard: 11th June 2021 20 Delivery of Decision: 24th June 2021 21 22 23 24 HEADNOTE 25 Criminal Law – Application to withdraw guilty plea pursuant to s.26 of the 26 Criminal Procedure Rules 2019 – Charges: Attempting to pervert the course of 27 justice – Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm – Common Assault. 28 29 30 JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEAS 31 32 33 34 35 ________________________________________________________________________________ Judgment: Application to withdraw guilty plea. R v. Forbes (Rayal Benson)) Ind. 66/2020. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 24th June 2021. Page 2 of 16 1 1. This is an application by Rayal Benson Forbes (‘the Applicant’) for permission to 2 withdraw his guilty pleas. It is being made pursuant to s.26 of the Criminal Procedure 3 Rules, 2019. 4 5 2. The defendant is charged on Indictment #66 of 2020 which contains Counts as follows: 6 7 i. Count 1: Attempting to pervert the course of justice contrary to s.107(1)(d) 8 of the Penal Code (2019 Revision) – an offence committed between the 30th 9 May 2019 and the 10th June 2020. 10 a. The Count is said to have arisen from actions that he took, 11 by way of counselling and coercing the virtual complainant 12 in the other counts, to get her to make false statements in 13 order to terminate those charges against him; 14 ii. Count 2: Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm contrary to s.216 of the 15 Penal Code (2019 Revision) – an offence committed on the 1st April 2019; 16 iii. Count 3: Common Assault contrary to s.215 of the Penal Code (2019 17 Revision) – an offence committed between the 18th May 2019; 18 iv. Count 4: Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm contrary to s.216 of the 19 Penal Code (2019 Revision) – an offence committed on the 19th May 2019. 20 21 22 ________________________________________________________________________________ Judgment: Application to withdraw guilty plea. R v. Forbes (Rayal Benson)) Ind. 66/2020. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 24th June 2021. Page 3 of 16 1 3. On 13th November 2020, whilst represented by counsel, the Applicant pleaded guilty to 2 Counts 1, 2, and 3, and, not guilty to Count 4. The Crown1 confirmed that the pleas to 3 Counts 1, 2, and 3 were accepted by the Crown “on the full facts of the case” and advised 4 that Count 4 would remain on file on the date of sentencing. 5 6 4. The application to withdraw the guilty pleas was filed on the 10th April 2021. In support 7 of his application, is the Applicant’s three-page, handwritten statement in which he sets 8 out what he says were the reasons for, and the sequence of events leading up to, the 9 guilty pleas. Those reasons may be summarized as follows: 10 11 i. His “…current position of being remanded for an extended period for the 12 allegations.” 13 ii. “[B]eing a former officer of the court I was aware of the lengthy waiting 14 period for Grand Court appearances.” 15 iii. He did not plead guilty as accepting the facts; 16 iv. “My situation at the time which still remains, with more urgency includes”: 17 a. “The welfare of my teenage child who is in the care of my 18 mother” 19 b. “Since my incarceration other arguevating [sic] factors is 20 my mother’s health, which she will be requiring spinal/back 21 surgery in the very near future, which leaves her lively 22 hood, and my son exposed with no oversight.” 1 Mr. Kumar was not Crown counsel before the Court in November 2020. ________________________________________________________________________________ Judgment: Application to withdraw guilty plea. R v. Forbes (Rayal Benson)) Ind. 66/2020. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 24th June 2021. Page 4 of 16 1 c. “Considering the current economic situation post 2 pandemic. There will be no one to oversee care of my child 3 and her small business which is her only livelihood.” 4 d. “Other factors include my forced termination of 5 employment which leaves my home position inevitable for 6 foreclosure when my savings becomes exhausted in the very 7 near future.” 8 e. “The issue was then magnified when I was asked to sign the 9 agreed facts a day before the sentencing.” 10 f. "I signed it on instructions from my attorney and he knew I 11 didn't agree". 12 13 5. The application was brought to the attention of his former attorney-at-law, Mr. Nicholas 14 Dixey (“Mr. Dixey”), for his comments, with the Applicant’s waiver of legal 15 professional privilege. Mr. Dixey submitted a statement dated 7 June 2021 in which he 16 set out his account of the events leading up to the Applicant’s pleas of guilty. In the said 17 statement, counsel indicates that, throughout the time of his representation of the 18 Applicant (from 14 September 2020 to 24 February 2021) he gave him full and careful 19 advice. For example, in paragraph 19 of his statement, he asserts the following: 20 21 “19. I attended HMP Northward and once again advised Mr. Forbes fully in 22 respect of the matter. He maintained that he was prepared to plead guilty 23 on full facts to counts 1-3. We went through the endorsement in detail 24 paragraph by paragraph. Mr. Forbes signed the endorsement and initialed ________________________________________________________________________________ Judgment: Application to withdraw guilty plea. R v. Forbes (Rayal Benson)) Ind. 66/2020. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 24th June 2021. Page 5 of 16 1 each page. Mr. Forbes’s initials and signature were witnessed by prison 2 officer Litchmore. A copy of the signed endorsement is exhibited.” 3 4 6. The contents of paragraph 21 of counsel’s statement are also of relevance. They read as 5 follows: 6 “21. On 12 November 2020 Mr. Forbes pleaded guilty on full facts to counts 1- 7 3, which the Crown accepted. Ms Oko was then tasked with preparing the 8 summary of facts. The purpose of the summary was to assist the sentencing 9 judge by condensing the complainant’s ABE interviews (the first of which 10 ran to some 138 pages) and excluding references to the counts or charges 11 that were not being proceeded with. It was always understood that the 12 defence review would be by way of a comparison of the summary with the 13 complainant’s ABE interviews, rather than taking any substantive issue that 14 could impact upon sentence. Mr. Forbes had indicated to the court through 15 me that he had pleaded guilty on full facts to counts 1-3, which of course 16 was consistent with our discussions when he signed the endorsement.” 17 SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS FOR THE APPLICANT 18 7. On behalf of the Applicant, Mr. Myers sought to stress that, in making this application, 19 it was not being sought to put any blame on counsel who previously represented the 20 Applicant, in putting across what he said was the subtleness of the Applicant’s point. 21 This application, he argued, complies with the requirements of the relevant rule. The 22 bases of the application were matters that were peculiar to the Applicant. These factors 23 were the catalyst that led the Applicant to enter the guilty plea when he did not accept 24 the facts, it was submitted. ________________________________________________________________________________ Judgment: Application to withdraw guilty plea. R v. Forbes (Rayal Benson)) Ind. 66/2020. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 24th June 2021. Page 6 of 16 1 8. At paragraph 3 of the Applicant’s written submissions it is also submitted that: 2 3 “…to allow the current pleas [to remain] would be unjust and, in the circumstances, 4 not to allow Mr. Rayal Forbes to withdraw the guilty plea would be deemed 5 ‘unjust’.” 6 7 SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS FOR THE CROWN 8 9 9. On the Crown’s behalf, Mr. Kumar submitted that: “It is not suggested by the applicant 10 that he was under undue pressure from the court or his attorney.” 11 12 10. Mr. Kumar submitted that the Applicant seems, in broad terms, to be putting forward 13 two main bases for the application, namely (i) the pressures that he faced that led him to 14 enter the guilty pleas; and (ii) that he does not accept the contents of the Agreed 15 Statement of Facts document and would not have entered the pleas if his counsel had not 16 advised him to do so. 17 18 11. He reviewed several authorities which set out general principles for guidance in 19 applications to withdraw guilty pleas, and among them are: 20 21 i. R v KC2; 22 ii. R v Nightingale3; and 23 iii. Garfield Silburn Jr v The Queen4. 24 2 [2019] EWCA Crim 1632 3 [2013] EWCA Crim 405 4 Criminal Appeal 16 of 2019 (3rd of February 2021) ________________________________________________________________________________ Judgment: Application to withdraw guilty plea. R v. Forbes (Rayal Benson)) Ind. 66/2020. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 24th June 2021. Page 7 of 16 1 12. In relation to the issue raised of “pressures”, Mr Kumar submitted as follows at 2 paragraph 23 of the Crown’s written submissions: 3 4 “23. Respectfully, the applicant's argument regarding pressure does not 5 advance the contention that it would be unjust not to allow a change 6 of plea; the argument is without merit and should be rejected.” 7 8 13. In relation to the second issue, at paragraph 27 of the written submissions, it was 9 submitted as follows: 10 11 “26. There is no suggestion that Mr Dixie (sic) has acted improperly in 12 accordance with that duty. The apparent criticism levelled by the 13 applicant is that he did not accept all aspects of the agreed 14 statement of facts. However, at the time he entered his plea, the 15 Applicant had been advised by a very experienced attorney and 16 entered a guilty plea accordingly.” 17 The application, therefore, ought to be refused, he submitted. 18 THE LAW 19 20 14. In the Criminal Procedure Rules, 2019, the procedure for an application to withdraw a 21 guilty plea is set out at paragraph 26 as follows: 22 “Application to withdraw a guilty plea 23
(1) This rule applies where the accused wants to withdraw a guilty 24 plea. 25 (2) The accused must apply to do so — 26 (a) as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the 27 reasons for doing so; and 28 (b) before sentence ________________________________________________________________________________ Judgment: Application to withdraw guilty plea. R v. Forbes (Rayal Benson)) Ind. 66/2020. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 24th June 2021. Page 8 of 16 1 (3) The application must (unless the court otherwise directs) be in 2 writing and where the application is in writing, the accused must 3 serve the application on — 4 (a) the court officer; and 5 (b) the prosecutor. 6 (4) The application must — 7 (a) explain why it would be unjust not to allow the accused to 8 withdraw the guilty plea; 9 (b) identify — 10 (i) any witness that the accused wants to call; and 11 (ii) any other proposed evidence; and 12 (c) state whether the accused waives legal professional 13 privilege, giving any relevant name and date. 14 (5) The court shall consider the matters stated under paragraph (4) 15 and may in its discretion, grant or refuse an application made in 16 accordance with this rule, as the justice of the case requires. 17 (6) The court may, for the purposes of paragraph (5) — 18 (a) list the case for directions; 19 (b) ensure that the accused understands where necessary, the 20 import of waiving privilege; and 21 (c) give direction for the application to be sent to the previous 22 attorney-at-law (together with a confirmation that privilege 23 has been waived), for the detailed comments of the previous 24 attorney-at-law to be incorporated in a witness statement.” 25 26 15. This procedure has been followed. That having been done, the decision of whether to 27 grant or refuse an application to withdraw a guilty plea is one that falls to the exercise 28 of the court’s discretion. This must be exercised judicially (see the case of R v Dodd 29 (Eric Henry) & Others5, for example). 30 31 16. In trying to arrive at a decision in this application, I have considered several authorities, 32 among them the case of R v Brahmbratt6. That case involved an appeal by a solicitor 33 who had pleaded guilty to charges relating to: “conspiring to convey a List A article into 34 a prison (count 1) and two counts of conspiring to convey a List B article into a prison 5 (1982) 74 Cr. App. R 50, at 57 6 [2014] EWCA Crim 573 ________________________________________________________________________________ Judgment: Application to withdraw guilty plea. R v. Forbes (Rayal Benson)) Ind. 66/2020. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 24th June 2021. Page 9 of 16 1 (counts 2 and 4).”7 These charges were brought pursuant to the Misuse of Drugs Act, 2
The appellant in that case signed endorsements to the effect that he was pleading 3 guilty of his own free will. He later sought to change his pleas. Paragraphs 19 and 26 of 4 the judgment, set out hereunder, are sufficient to indicate the basis of his application and 5 the court’s treatment of it: 6 “19. On the application to vacate the plea, the Appellant claimed he had 7 only pleaded guilty because he felt pressurised by the 8 circumstances. He insisted he was not in his right mind at the time. 9 He told us he was “confused, distressed, feeling suicidal and 10 fearful”. 11 12
We have concentrated on the appellant’s mental state as requested. 13 We have no hesitation in finding that there was no basis whatsoever 14 for the application to vacate the pleas of guilty. Unfortunately we 15 found little in what the appellant said remotely credible. He gave us 16 the clear impression of someone prepared to say or do anything to 17 escape the consequences of his actions.” 18 19 17. The case of R v Nightingale8 (cited by the Crown) also provides useful general guidance 20 in considering this application. In that case, the appellant was successful on his appeal 21 to the England and Wales Court of Appeal against his conviction by a court-martial for 22 ammunition offences that had been based on a guilty plea. The court there held that the 23 learned judge advocate general who had presided over the court martial erred by giving 24 an unsolicited indication of sentence, which, the court found, had the effect of creating 25 inappropriate additional pressures on the appellant. The court stated at paragraphs 16 26 and 17 of the judgment: 27 28 29 7 (Paragraph 1 of the judgment) 8 [2013] EWCA Crim 405 ________________________________________________________________________________ Judgment: Application to withdraw guilty plea. R v. Forbes (Rayal Benson)) Ind. 66/2020. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 24th June 2021. Page 10 of 16 1 “16. … The question is whether the uninvited indication given by the judge, 2 and its consequent impact on the defendant after considering the 3 advice given to him by his legal advisers on the basis of their 4 professional understanding of the effect of what the judge has said, 5 had created inappropriate additional pressures on the defendant 6 and narrowed the proper ambit of his freedom of choice. 7 8
Having reflected on the facts in this case, we conclude that the 9 appellant's freedom of choice was indeed improperly narrowed. 10 Accordingly, the plea of guilty is in effect a nullity. It will be set 11 aside. The conviction based on the plea will be quashed.” 12 13 18. The general guidance that was given in that case is to be found at paragraphs 10 to 12 of 14 the judgment and is as follows: 15 “10. Against those facts we must consider the relevant principles of law. 16 It is axiomatic in our criminal justice system that a defendant 17 charged with an offence is personally responsible for entering his 18 plea, and that in exercising his personal responsibility he must be 19 free to choose whether to plead guilty or not guilty. Ample 20 authority, from R v Turner [1970] 2 QB 321 to R v Goodyear [2005] 21 1 WLR 2532, which amends and brings Turner up to date, 22 underlines this immutable principle. The principle applies whether 23 or not the court or counsel on either side think that the case against 24 the defendant is a weak one or even if it is apparently unanswerable. 25 In view of the conclusion that we have reached, we shall express no 26 opinion whatever of our view of the strength of the case against the 27 appellant. 28 29
What the principle does not mean and cannot mean is that the 30 defendant making his decision must be free from the pressure of the 31 circumstances in which he is forced to make his choice. He has, 32 after all, been charged with a criminal offence. There will be 33 evidence to support the contention that he is guilty. If he is 34 convicted, whether he has pleaded guilty or found guilty at the 35 conclusion of a trial in which he has denied his guilt, he will face 36 the consequences. The very fact of his conviction may have 37 significant impact on his life and indeed for the lives of members of 38 his family. He will be sentenced -- often to a term of imprisonment. 39 Those are all circumstances which always apply for every 40 defendant facing a criminal charge. 41 42
In addition to the inevitable pressure created by considerations like 43 these, the defendant will also be advised by his lawyers about his 44 prospects of successfully contesting the charge and the implications ________________________________________________________________________________ Judgment: Application to withdraw guilty plea. R v. Forbes (Rayal Benson)) Ind. 66/2020. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 24th June 2021. Page 11 of 16 1 for the sentencing decision if the contest is unsuccessful. It is the 2 duty of the advocate at the Crown Court or the Magistrates' Court 3 to point out to the defendant the possible advantages in sentencing 4 terms of tendering a guilty plea to the charge. So even if the 5 defendant has indicated or instructed his lawyers that he intends to 6 plead not guilty, in his own interests he is entitled to be given, and 7 should receive, realistic, forthright advice on these and similar 8 questions. These necessary forensic pressures add to the pressures 9 which arise from the circumstances in which the defendant 10 inevitably finds himself. Such forensic pressures and clear and 11 unequivocal advice from his lawyers do not deprive the defendant 12 of his freedom to choose whether to plead guilty or not guilty; 13 rather, the provision of realistic advice about his prospects helps to 14 inform his choice.” (Emphasis added) 15 16 19. What these paragraphs illustrate is the harsh reality that, once a defendant becomes 17 engaged in the criminal justice system, pressures of various sorts are bound to result. 18 There will be what is described in the case R v Nightingale9 as the “forensic pressures” 19 of considering legal advice and deciding on the best way forward when a criminal charge 20 is brought. Apart from those, additional pressures will necessarily ensue and are a natural 21 result of: (i) a defendant being remanded in custody – especially for an extended period; 22 and (ii) the effect of the focussing of attention on the effect of the outcome of the case 23 on one’s future. Among the considerations that will no doubt affect a defendant are, for 24 example: (a) the prospect of having to serve a period of imprisonment and being 25 separated from one’s family; (b) having a criminal record; and, perhaps, (c) losing one’s 26 employment. One would expect that, facing criminal proceedings as a defendant will 27 inevitably generate these pressures. These pressures, I would expect, will naturally affect 28 most, if not all, defendants to different degrees; or, put another way: it would be 29 surprising to find a defendant who does not experience pressures of one kind or another 30 as a result of having criminal charges brought against him. Not unnaturally, the pressures 9 Supra ________________________________________________________________________________ Judgment: Application to withdraw guilty plea. R v. Forbes (Rayal Benson)) Ind. 66/2020. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 24th June 2021. Page 12 of 16 1 experienced will vary in kind and degree from defendant to defendant according to the 2 personal circumstances of each; but pressures there are certain to be. 3 4 20. It is my view that, those pressures being put forward by the Applicant in support of his 5 application, are no different from those that any defendant would reasonably be expected 6 to face. They are not exceptional in nature or degree so as to make it unjust for him not 7 to be allowed to change his plea. 8 9 21. In R v Jeffrey Alexander Barnes10, Henderson, J at paragraph 22 of his judgment, in 10 refusing an application to withdraw a guilty plea, after reviewing a number of authorities, 11 made the following observations: 12 “The authorities suggest that the discretion to allow a change of plea would 13 ordinarily be exercised in a defendant’s favour if it appears that his plea 14 was entered under a misapprehension about the facts or the applicable law. 15 They also suggest that reluctance on the part of a defendant to plead guilty 16 followed by a change of heart soon after the plea is entered, if 17 unaccompanied by any sort of mistake or misunderstanding, will not 18 ordinarily suffice to justify a change of plea.” 19 20 22. In the instant application, nothing has been put before me to indicate any 21 misapprehension by the Applicant of the facts or relevant law or any mistake or 22 misunderstanding on his part. 23 24 23. In relation to the Applicant’s allusion to counsel’s not properly advising him, and to his 25 not being in agreement with the facts, there are a number of observations to be made: 26 10 Ind. No. 87A of 2011 ________________________________________________________________________________ Judgment: Application to withdraw guilty plea. R v. Forbes (Rayal Benson)) Ind. 66/2020. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 24th June 2021. Page 13 of 16 1 i. I see nothing on the material presented that would cause me to doubt the 2 assertion of counsel who represented the Applicant when he pleaded guilty 3 (at the time of the plea, counsel of some 16 years at the Cayman Islands 4 bar), that he pleaded guilty to “the full facts”. As counsel has asserted in his 5 statement, the endorsement having been signed, the intention was to 6 condense the substance of the Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) interview 7 which ran to 138 pages; not to take issue with the facts outlined therein; 8 9 ii. When one reads the Social Inquiry Report (SIR) at page 9, the Applicant 10 can be taken to have admitted the offences to the probation officer. This is 11 what is noted, among other things: 12 “Mr. Forbes stated that the “offences happened but Miss Cruz- 13 Sampson exaggerated her statements”. Client was asked to specify 14 the exaggerations but declined to do so.” 15 16 iii. When the Applicant’s letter to the court, preparatory to being sentenced, is 17 read, it appears also to be a full admission; seeking primarily to persuade 18 the court to be lenient. At the first paragraph of the letter he says the 19 following: 20 21 “I am writing this letter to express my sincere remorse for the 22 irresponsible behavior [sic]. I engaged in. I know that there is no 23 excuse or satisfactory explanation for my conduct and I accept 24 complete responsibility for what I have done.” ________________________________________________________________________________ Judgment: Application to withdraw guilty plea. R v. Forbes (Rayal Benson)) Ind. 66/2020. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 24th June 2021. Page 14 of 16 1 2 iv. In the endorsement that he signed, dated 12 November 2020, the Applicant 3 states the following at paragraphs 1 and 6 thereof: 4 5 “1. I have considered carefully all of the evidence in this case, 6 and in particular the interviews of the complainant Thelma 7 Cruz-Sampson and the voice messages it is said that I sent 8 to her and exchanges of WhatsApp messages. 9 10
I further confirm that this document has been explained to 11 me in simple English, and I understand its contents. I 12 further confirm that I have confidence in my 13 representation.” 14 15 24. All these considerations, therefore, cause the Applicant’s challenge on this front (signing 16 without agreeing to the full facts) to ring hollow. It does not amount to a sufficient basis 17 on which to establish his assertion that it would be unjust not to allow him to withdraw 18 his guilty pleas. 19 20 25. Apart from these matters that I have already discussed, there is yet another consideration: 21 this court is enjoined by s.4 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2019, to apply the 22 overriding objective to its consideration of all criminal cases. The requirement is that: 23 “criminal cases be dealt with justly.” Section 4(3) sets out what “dealing with cases 24 justly” entails. These are the words of that sub-section: 25 ________________________________________________________________________________ Judgment: Application to withdraw guilty plea. R v. Forbes (Rayal Benson)) Ind. 66/2020. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 24th June 2021. Page 15 of 16 1 “(3) Dealing with a criminal case justly includes — 2 (a) dealing with the prosecution and the defence fairly; 3 (b) ensuring the protection of all the rights of an accused; 4 (c) considering the interests of the accused, witnesses, victims and 5 jurors and keeping them informed of the progress of the case, as 6 necessary; 7 (d) dealing with the case efficiently and expeditiously; 8 (e) ensuring that appropriate information is available to the court 9 particularly when bail or sentence is under consideration; and 10 (f) dealing with the case in ways that take into account — 11 (i) the gravity of the offence; 12 (ii) the complexity of what is in issue; 13 (iii) the consequences for an accused and others who may be 14 affected; 15 (iv) the needs of other cases; and 16 (v) allotting the case an appropriate share of the court’s 17 resources, while taking into account the need to allot 18 resources to other cases.” 19 20 26. Sub-section (4) is also of importance. According to that section: 21 “(4) The court must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when the court 22 — 23 (a) exercises any discretion given to the court by these Rules; or 24 (b) interprets the meaning of any rule or practice direction.” 25 26 27 27. In considering this application and deciding how to exercise my discretion on this 28 application, I have borne in mind and sought, as is my duty, to advance the overriding 29 objective. It is clear to me that where, as I have found to be the case in this application, 30 an Applicant has not made good any of the grounds of his application which, therefore, 31 lacks merit, it would not be in keeping with (and in fact would run counter to) the 32 overriding objective to grant that application. 33 34 35 36 ________________________________________________________________________________ Judgment: Application to withdraw guilty plea. R v. Forbes (Rayal Benson)) Ind. 66/2020. Coram: Acting Justice Frank Williams. Date: 24th June 2021. Page 16 of 16 1 28. In the result, the application to withdraw the plea of guilty, being wholly unmeritorious, 2 is refused. The sentencing of the Applicant should now proceed 3 4 5 Dated this the 24th day of June 2021 6 7 8 Justice Frank Williams (Actg.) 9 Acting Judge of the Grand Court 10 11 12