R v Tibbetts (Nicholas Patrick) - Sentence Judgment

¶ ```html 1 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 2 CRIMINAL SIDE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 INDICTMENT NO ： 0071/2015 11 12 THE QUEEN 13 14 15 16 17 NICHOLAS PATRICK TIBBETTS 18 Appearances： 19 Mr. Greg Walcolm for the Crown 20 Ms. Amelia Fosuhene of BRADY for the 21 Defendant 22 Before： 23 Dame Linda Dobbs 24 Sentence Hearing： 25 15th-16th December 2016 26 Delivery of Decision： 27 16th December 2016 28 29 30 31 32 HEADNOTE 33 34 Criminal Law-Death by Careless Driving-Sentence-Starting point- 35 Aggravating and Mitigating Factors-Court's discretion to consider a reduction 36 for time on an electronically monitored curfew. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 </
```html 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 INTRODUCTION 1. Mr Tibbetts pleaded guilty to one offence of causing death by careless driving on 23 rd April 2015 contrary to s.79 of the Traffic Law 2011 Revision. A count of doing an act count of doing an act intending and intended to obstruct justice was not proceeded with. FACTS 2. On Thursday 23 rd April 2015 around 4.30 a.m., the lifeless body of Mr Donnie Ray Connor was discovered, by a cyclist, on the side of the eastbound side of Linford Pearson highway, at the junction with Birchwood drive. The cyclist contacted the police and police and ambulance were dispatched to the scene. The victim was taken to hospital. Debris at the scene, including the damaged bicycle of the deceased, were collected. The scene had all the signs of a hit-and-run accident. 3. An investigation ensued. 4. During the course of the investigation police watched CCTV footage which showed a grey coloured car resembling a Honda Torneo entering from Agnes Way and exiting Linford Pearson highway shortly after the victim entered that highway from Bobby Thompson Way. It was noted that when the Honda Torneo entered the highway it did not have any damage to it, but some two minutes later, by the Kings Gym roundabout, damarside of the obta all grey and adi age to the ne car, incl 21 21 Sentence Judgment. R v. Nicholas Patrick Tibbetts. Ind. 71/15; Coram: Dobbs J. (Actg.). Date: 16.12.2016 Page 2 of 26 ```
The officers made checks at each address of owners of such cars. On Sunday 26th April, they went to an address listed for registration of vehicle 138-445 at 53 Kipling Street. The officers noticed a car in front of the house and two elderly ladies outside on the front porch. On walking past the car the officers noticed the smell of fresh paint fumes and also that the colour on the left fender and hood was different from the rest of the car. The officers asked to see the registered owner, Mr Tibbetts. He came out. He was asked if he had done any work on his car recently as the officers could smell paint fumes. Mr Tibbetts replied, "Yes, I crash Wednesday night at Country and Western round about the same time that guy was hit" He was asked what guy. He said he had heard it on the news. He was arrested and cautioned and taken to the police station. The car was seized. The defendant’s iPhone was seized and messages downloaded which revealed conversations about Mr Tibbetts having an accident and whether it was connected to the man who had been killed. Further investigations by the police revealed that after the accident the defendant went to the Red Bay On the Run petrol station where he changed the nearside rear wheel which damaged from CCTV from the petrol station. The damage car epulling up to the leaving. To the station had been on the accidentation showing the head light and left fender and windscreen was visible. Sentence Judgment. R v. Nicholas Patrick Tibbetts. Ind. 71/15; Coram: Dobbs J. (Actg.). Date: 16.12.2016 Page 3 of 26
The defendant went home but later that morning contacted a friend, Frank Watler Jr. As a result of the conversation, the defendant contacted Lance Eden to make arrangements to have his car fixed. The defendant, having rung around for parts, contacted Danny who sold him the parts for CI$825. Work began on the car immediately on the same day. The defendant asked a friend Carlos Robinson to help him dispose of the damaged parts at the dump. They took the windshield and fender but left the hood behind as they could not fit it into the defendant’s car. This was sometime after 10 p.m. on 23rd April. The post mortem on the victim took place on 28th April. The cause of death was blunt impact trauma to the head, chest and abdomen consistent with being hit by a motor vehicle. Swabs taken from the defendant’s car proved a match for the deceased. Collin Redden, an accident reconstruction expert, examined the scene of the collision and the defendant’s car. He concluded that the bicycle ridden by the victim had no lights or reflectors but that the highway lighting was reasonable. Mr Connor (the victim) was heading eastbound towards the Kings Gym roundabout. The defendant’s car was also heading eastbound. It hit the rear of Mr Connor’s bicycle; this threw Mr Connor backwards onto the left side of the car’s bonnet and into the front windscreen and left-side pillar area of the car. After the initial impact, the bicycle was partly run over causing the rider to separate from the frame and drag the front rim and front fork. Sentence Judgment. R v. Nicholas Patrick Tibbetts. Ind. 71/15; Coram: Dobbs J. (Actg.). Date: 16.12.2016 Page 4 of 26
The defendant's car continued to travel along the hard shoulder heading towards the guard rail, leaving behind the front rim and tyre from the bicycle, silver paint chip pieces of headlight lens and the left front fender liner. The rider would still have been carried by the car – with the rest of the bicycle being dragged under the left side rocket panel area. The Honda continued to travel towards the open lot before veering to the right, back onto the highway. As it did so, the left rear car tyre ran over the bicycle damaging the outside sidewall, causing the tyre to deflate and causing the bicycle to finally rest by the side of the guardrail. The rider, at the same time, was also projected off the nearside of the car – which ripped the nearside rear rain guard from the window frame. This was found just west of the final resting place of the bicycle. The deceased landed on the edge of the hard shoulder just near the bicycle handlebar. Upon examination, the damage to the car tyre showed that the tyre was damaged from the outside and not the inside – the latter being consistent with a blowout. The damage also indicated that the car was driven some distance with the flat tyre, causing the lip of the rim to cut into the sidewalk. The defendant was interviewed on 27th April 2015. A prepared statement was presented by the defendant’s attorney but as the defendant was not feeling well, the interview was cut short. Sentence Judgment. R v. Nicholas Patrick Tibbetts. Ind. 71/15; Coram: Dobbs J. (Actg.). Date: 16.12.2016 Page 5 of 26
The interview resumed on Thursday 30th April. The attorney read out the prepared statement. The defendant said that he had taken some Benadryl for his allergies which can sometimes make him drowsy. He went out and had some rum and lots of water. He believed that he was fit to drive and did not feel tired when he started his journey home. He remembered taking the turn to Linford Pearson Highway but he did not recall hitting anyone or being in an accident. He only remembered the sound of a horn and bright lights from a vehicle behind him. He did not know if he had hit anyone. He must have fallen asleep as he started to have trouble controlling his car in the vicinity of the Country and Western Bar, when he realised that he had blown his tyre. He went to the Red Bay petrol station where he noticed that there was significant damage to his car and he was confused about how it could have happened. He changed the tyre and, when he got home, parked his car in his front garden facing the street with the damage visible. He still did not know at that time whether he had hit the man. He found out about a man being hit on a website the next day – but he wasn’t worried because he didn’t think that he had hit anyone. He then heard that a silver car was involved and he wondered if it were him. He spoke to people about going to the police. He knew the right thing was to go to the police and he was intending to do so on the Monday but was arrested before he had the chance to do so. He was asked why he had rushed to mend his car and he replied that it was his only means of transportation. He was not trying to conceal the damage. When asked why he had taken the damaged parts to the dump at night himself – he replied – they are mine. He had known that he had the right to go to the police and he was on his way to do so when he was arrested on Sunday. Sentence Judgment. R v. Nicholas Patrick Tibbetts. Ind. 71/15; Coram: Dobbs J. (Actg.). Date: 16.12.2016 Page 6 of 26
```markdown # REPORTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS

¶ [19] There is a Social Inquiry Report (SIR) dated 7th November 2016. So far as the defendant's background is concerned, despite a somewhat unsettled childhood, he did well at school, and on leaving school, found employment. He has been gainfully employed since 2007 and, until the incident, was employed as an Immigration Officer in the Immigration Department. He met and married his present wife in October 2015. There are no children. He is a church goer and attends regularly. He is also heavily involved in community sports activities in recent times. He has not taken alcohol since he became baptised a year ago. He has no previous convictions.

¶ [20] He is assessed at a very low risk of re-offending.

¶ [21] There are also numerous testimonials in support of the defendant. The authors all speak very highly of the defendant and how shocked they were to hear of the incident because it was so out of character. All the positive things that can be said about a person have been said about this defendant. His wife speaks of the defendant as a loving, caring and trustworthy person. She describes the deep regret and sadness the defendant has about the accident; she describes the hardship she would face were the defendant to be given a custodial sentence.

¶ [22] Another letter of note is one from Mr Moore, the nephew of the victim Mr Connor. He tells of the victim's closeness to his mother. He also spoke of his knowledge of the Tibbetts family. Plea to the court to consider the defendant's sentence. ```
```markdown # MITIGATION

¶ [23] The defence submit that the SIR and the letters of support show that the defendant, Mr. Tibbetts, is a man of exceptional character. The incident was wholly out of character – this is demonstrated, it is said, by his letters of remorse.

¶ [24] The defence deal with what the prosecution has argued is an aggravating factor – namely the fixing of the car so quickly. The point is made that Mr Tibbetts left his car on the road after the incident where anyone could have seen it. He kept receipts for the work done and discussed with a number of people whether he could have been responsible for the incident. It is submitted that the WhatsApp messages showed that Mr Tibbetts wanted to go to the police, but was dissuaded from doing so by his friend because of the reputation of the police. He was due to go to the police station on the Monday but was arrested before that time.

¶ [25] He still has no memory of the incident.

¶ [26] The defence rely on the defendant’s good character, his clean driving record and his plea of guilty - for which it is submitted maximum credit must be due.

¶ [27] The defence also submit that a community sentence could be passed in this case – not least because of the letter from Mr Moore on behalf of the victim’s family. Originally it was submitted that a suspended sentence could be passed, but that submission has been dropped in light of the legislation. ```
```html 1 THE LAW 2 28. The maximum sentence for causing death by careless driving is 7 years’ imprisonment 3 or a fine of up to CI$10,000, or both. Automatic disqualification of at least three years 4 from the expiration of the prison sentence and endorsement of the driving licence also 5 follows. 6 29. It is to be noted that the UK equivalent carries a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment. 7 This is relevant when considering the UK Guidelines on causing death by driving. 8 30. My attention has been drawn to a number of cases: 9 31. Rv Campbelll; Rv Palmer2; Rv Jones3; Rv Crew4; Rv Rice5. Reference is also made 10 to Rv Roache6, a local case. The first two quoted cases were relied on by the defence 11 to show that community based sentences can properly be passed for cases of death by 12 careless driving. I have read all the cases. ``` ```latex \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline 1 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{THE LAW}} \\ \hline 2 & 28. The maximum sentence for causing death by careless driving is 7 years’ imprisonment \\ \hline 3 & or a fine of up to CI$10,000, or both. Automatic disqualification of at least three years \\ \hline 4 & from the expiration of the prison sentence and endorsement of the driving licence also \\ \hline 5 & follows. \\ \hline 6 & 29. It is to be noted that the UK equivalent carries a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment. \\ \hline 7 & This is relevant when considering the UK Guidelines on causing death by driving. \\ \hline 8 & 30. My attention has been drawn to a number of cases: \\ \hline 9 & 31. Rv Campbelll; Rv Palmer2; Rv Jones3; Rv Crew4; Rv Rice5. Reference is also made \\ \hline 10 & to Rv Roache6, a local case. The first two quoted cases were relied on by the defence \\ \hline 11 & to show that community based sentences can properly be passed for cases of death by \\ \hline 12 & careless driving. I have read all the cases. \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} ``` ```latex \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{[2009] EWCA Crim 2459}} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{[2010] EWCA Crim 1863}} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{[2012] EWCA Crim 972}} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{[2009] EWCA Crim 1539}} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{[2009] EWCA 1967}} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{Dated 15th March 2016 (Malcolm J Actg)}} \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} ```
```html 1 SENTENCE 2 32. It has often been said that the offence of death by careless driving produces one of the 3 most difficult sentencing problems because at the lower end, the driving, if no death 4 had been involved, would incur a modest fine, but yet the consequence of that driving 5 has been a loss of life. 6 33. Turning to the Guidelines, the first task is to choose an appropriate bracket. 7 34. The lowest category refers to careless or inconsiderate driving arising from momentary 8 inattention with no aggravating factors； the top level is careless or inconsiderate 9 driving falling not far short of dangerous driving； and the middle level encompasses all 10 other types of driving. 11 35. The lowest level is clearly inappropriate. The real issue is whether I can be sure that 12 this case should be categorised as falling not short of dangerous driving. If not， 13 then the case falls into the middle category. 14 36. Although in the Interpretation section of the Traffic Law 2011 examples are given of 15 what constitutes careless and inconsiderate driving， there is no definition of dangerous 16 or reckless driving. 17 37. I turn therefore to s.2A of the UK Road Traffic Act 1988 for assistance. I quote： 18 19 20 ``` ```latex \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline 1 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{SENTENCE}} \\ \hline 2 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{32.} \\ \hline 3 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{It has often been said that the offence of death by careless driving produces one of the} \\ \hline 4 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{most difficult sentencing problems because at the lower end, the driving, if no death} \\ \hline 5 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{had been involved, would incur a modest fine, but yet the consequence of that driving} \\ \hline 6 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{has been a loss of life.} \\ \hline 7 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{33.} \\ \hline 8 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Turning to the Guidelines, the first task is to choose an appropriate bracket.} \\ \hline 9 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{34.} \\ \hline 10 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{The lowest category refers to careless or inconsiderate driving arising from momentary} \\ \hline 11 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{inattention with no aggravating factors； the top level is careless or inconsiderate} \\ \hline 12 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{driving falling not far short of dangerous driving； and the middle level encompasses all} \\ \hline 13 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{other types of driving.} \\ \hline 14 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{35.} \\ \hline 15 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{The lowest level is clearly inappropriate. The real issue is whether I can be sure that} \\ \hline 16 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{this case should be categorised as falling not short of dangerous driving. If not，} \\ \hline 17 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{then the case falls into the middle category.} \\ \hline 18 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{36.} \\ \hline 19 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Although in the Interpretation section of the Traffic Law 2011 examples are given of} \\ \hline 20 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{what constitutes careless and inconsiderate driving， there is no definition of dangerous} \\ \hline 21 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{or reckless driving.} \\ \hline 22 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{37.} \\ \hline 23 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{I turn therefore to s.2A of the UK Road Traffic Act 1988 for assistance. I quote：} \\ \hline 24 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{19} \\ \hline 25 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Page 10 of 26} \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} ```
```html 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 “(1) For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if) a) the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. (2) A person is also to be regarded as driving dangerously for the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous. (3) In subsections (1) and (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of those subsections what would be expected of, obvious to, a competent and careful driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.” 38. Annex A to the causing death by driving guidelines gives examples of dangerous driving which includes driving when too tired to stay awake. 39. What we can glean from the evidence is as follows: 40. The defendant had on his own admission taken Benadryl before he went out that night. Thereafter, he was drinking alcohol with friends until about 2.30 a.m. The defendant himself admitted in his prepared statement that the Benadryl sometimes made him drowsy. Any prudent driver would be aware of the potentially deleterious effect on driving of taking such medication and mixing it with alcohol. Having taken Benadryl, he should not have drunk alcohol and certainly not into the early hours. The defendant says ore than a cond certa he had no mouple of r given the period of time that he was out socialising. ```
```html 1 41. Additionally, drivers are expected to take extra care when driving near vulnerable road 2 users such as cyclists. This obviously was not the case here. The highway was lit up 3 and his car went straight into the back of the cyclist. 4 42. The defendant thinks that he must have fallen asleep at the wheel. Given that his case 5 is that he was unaware of any accident occurring, it must have been a very deep sleep- 6 no doubt assisted by the drinking of alcohol and the taking of Benadryl earlier. He 7 cannot have thought that he was fit to drive if that were the case. 8 43. I have already set out the findings of the expert. This incident cannot be classified as 9 momentary inattention. Moreover, having clipped the cyclist and the cyclist having 10 landed on the trunk of the car, any prudent driver would have stopped the car 11 immediately. However, it is clear that the car drove on, veering onto the hard shoulder 12 and into the open space, running over and dragging as it did, the bicycle, and with the 13 cyclist still on the hood of the car. 14 44. It is difficult to accept that the defendant was unaware of the accident. The sound of 15 the accident collision together with the cyclist being thrown onto bonnet of the vehicle 16 would have woken the dead. 17 45. That he was awake and functioning very soon after the accident is clear as he drove 18 straight into the petrol station to change his damaged tyre. He cannot have failed to 19 notice the damage to his car, with pieces missing, yet he did not return to the scene to 20 check what had happened and very soon thereafter disposed of the car and the 21 same day made repairs to the car and the same night. He did not report the matter to the police even though he knew that a person was 22 seriously injured and then later died. ```
```html 1 46. The fact that he risked being caught on CCTV, that he kept receipts for the repairs and 2 discussed the possibilities of being involved with friends and family do not lead 3 inexorably to the conclusion that he was unaware of the accident at the time or shortly 4 thereafter. 5 47. In my judgment this case falls within the category of driving that falls not far short of 6 dangerous driving. 7 48. The starting point therefore is 15 months custody with a range of 36 weeks to 3 years. 8 I bear in mind that the guidelines refer to cases following conviction and also that the 9 maximum sentence is less in the UK. 10 AGGRAVATING FACTORS 11 49. The use of alcohol, having taken Benadryl and the lack of attention to vulnerable road 12 users, have been taken into account when determining the seriousness of the offence. 13 50. There is one aggravating factor and that is the fact that the defendant did not stop after 14 the accident, not even when he knew for sure that he had been involved in an accident 15 when he was at the garage shortly after. He compounded this by getting the car 16 mended immediately and disposing of most of the damaged parts. This of course 17 makes the task of the police more difficult. 18 51. The defence argue that this should not be taken into account because of the risk of 19 doublue to the facdant faces a of the le ne after an a prosecutie St agree. Tn the Sum le counting ct that the de Summary 20 aving the sce accident. he mmary 21 Court can ensure that the defendant is not penalised twice for this aspect. 22 ``` This is a faithful transcription of the provided text, using Markdown for headings and paragraph structure, HTML for tables, and LaTeX for math. The image of the Grand Court Cayman Islands seal is included as an example of the official document's seal.
```html 1 MITIGATING FACTORS 2 52. So far as mitigation is concerned - the defendant is a man of hitherto impeccable character. He is a person who is highly regarded in the community and a person who has held down a job since he started working. He has a clean driving licence. He has shown remorse and has been deeply affected by this incident, although despite his plea of guilty, he still distances himself from the incident - claiming not to remember it. To his credit, he has stopped the use of alcohol, ensuring hopefully that an incident like this will not reoccur. 9 53. He has pleaded guilty and is therefore entitled to a full discount of one-third. 10 54. The law does not allow the court to pass a suspended sentence in cases of this nature. The stark alternative is a non-custodial penalty or an immediate sentence of imprisonment. The court has to follow the spirit of the guidelines. The letter from Mr Moore, compassionate though it was, cannot be justification for the court operating outside the guidelines in this particular case. The sentencing cases relied on to support a community-based penalty, do not help. Palmer7 was a case in the lowest bracket, namely momentary inattention with no aggravating features. In Campbell8 the Court of Appeal of England and Wales reduced the category from the middle to lowest bracket on the basis that the judge had failed to take into account the evidence of the defence expert on the issue of speed, and also had failed to give proper credit for a plea of guilty. 21 ``` ```latex \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline 1 & \textbf{MITIGATING FACTORS} \\ \hline 2 & 52. So far as mitigation is concerned - the defendant is a man of hitherto impeccable character. He is a person who is highly regarded in the community and a person who has held down a job since he started working. He has a clean driving licence. He has shown remorse and has been deeply affected by this incident, although despite his plea of guilty, he still distances himself from the incident - claiming not to remember it. To his credit, he has stopped the use of alcohol, ensuring hopefully that an incident like this will not reoccur. \\ \hline 9 & 53. He has pleaded guilty and is therefore entitled to a full discount of one-third. \\ \hline 10 & 54. The law does not allow the court to pass a suspended sentence in cases of this nature. The stark alternative is a non-custodial penalty or an immediate sentence of imprisonment. The court has to follow the spirit of the guidelines. The letter from Mr Moore, compassionate though it was, cannot be justification for the court operating outside the guidelines in this particular case. The sentencing cases relied on to support a community-based penalty, do not help. Palmer7 was a case in the lowest bracket, namely momentary inattention with no aggravating features. In Campbell8 the Court of Appeal of England and Wales reduced the category from the middle to lowest bracket on the basis that the judge had failed to take into account the evidence of the defence expert on the issue of speed, and also had failed to give proper credit for a plea of guilty. \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} ``` ```latex \footnote{supra} \footnote{supra} ``` ```latex Sentence Judgment, R v. Nicholas Patrick Tibbetts. Ind. 71/15; Coram: Dobbs J. (Actg.). Date: 16.12.2016 Page 14 of 26 ```
Taking into account the aggravating factor, the starting point is increased to 18 months. Giving as much credit as I can for the mitigating factors, the figure is reduced to 12 months. With full credit for the plea of guilty, this leads to a sentence of 8 months imprisonment. The defendant will be disqualified for 3 years following the expiration of the sentence and his licence will be endorsed. However, this is not the end of this matter as, at this point, an issue was raised by counsel. This is a most unsatisfactory situation. Neither counsel in their sentencing submissions or in the period up to the sentence I imposed at paragraph 55 above, yesterday (the 15th December 2016) made reference to the fact that the defendant had been on a curfew with an electronic tag. It was only after the court had announced sentence yesterday that defence counsel raised the issue of credit for time spent on an electronically monitored curfew. It was submitted by the defence that this would qualify the defendant for half a day’s credit per day on curfew to be deducted from the sentence as per the procedure in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2015) on the very issue. The guidance, unlike that of the UK, gives the court a discretion, having due regard to the practice in the UK. The court adjourned for counsel to discuss the issue. As a result of their discussions it transpired that there is guidance in the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines (2
```markdown # THE CURFEW

¶ [60] The defendant was subject to a nighttime curfew (between the hours of 8 p.m. to 6 a.m.) for the period under which the defendant was being subjected to an electronically monitored curfew was between the 1st May 2015 and the 16th December 2016 - being a period of 1 year, 7 months, 16 days - 596 days. # The Law

¶ [61] Paragraph 12 of the Cayman Islands Sentencing Guidelines, published in October 2015, deals with reduction in sentence for time spent on remand subject to conditions curtailing liberty. The guidance indicates that the Court is instructed to ``` Consider whether credit should be given for time spent on bail where conditions have been imposed which curtail the liberty of the defendant. This is most likely to be relevant where a defendant has been subjected to a curfew, especially where compliance with that curfew can be verified through electronic monitoring.

¶ [62] Relevant factors to be taken into account in the exercise of discretion include: - The Total length of time the defendant has been subject to a curfew; - The number of hours each day that curfew was imposed during the curfew period; - Whether the curfew included daytime hours or was solely a night time curfew (recognising that being indoors at night during, for example, normal sleeping hours may be less of a curtailment of liberty than being indoors during the day); - Any breach of the conditions of curfew.

¶ [24] [Incomplete text]

¶ [53] Add deciding how to execute the sentence in the hands, the earthing in the statutory provisions in the Cayman Islands in mind the statutory provisions in England & Wales as set out in s.240A of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003 (as amended by LASPO 2012 s.109) in relation to electronically monitored curfew. Sentence Judgment. R v. Nicholas Patrick Tibbetts. Ind. 71/15; Coram: Dobbs J. (Actg.). Date: 16.12.2016 Page 16 of 26 ```
Section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as amended reads: ## (1) This section applies where— (a) a court sentences an offender to imprisonment for a term in respect of an offence committed on or after 4th April 2005, (b) the offender was remanded on bail by a court in course of or in connection with proceedings for the offence, or any related offence, after the coming into force of section 21 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, and (c) the offender's bail was subject to a qualifying curfew condition and an electronic monitoring condition (“the relevant conditions”). ## (2) Subject to subsection (4), the court must direct that the credit period is to count as time served by the offender as part of the sentence. ## (3) The “credit period” is the number of days represented by half of the sum of— (a) the day on which the offender's bail was first subject to conditions that, had they applied throughout the day in question, would have been relevant conditions, and (b) the number of other days on which the offender's bail was subject to those conditions (excluding the last day on which it was so subject), rounded up to the nearest whole number. ## (4) Subsection (2) does not apply if and to the extent that— (a) rules made by the Secretary of State so provide, or (b) it is in the opinion of the court just in all the circumstances not to give a direction under that subsection. ## (5) Where as a result of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (4) the court does not give a direction under subsection (2), it may give a direction in accordance with paragraphs [44a] and [44b] of the Sentencing Code to counteract the effect of those paragraphs, which is less to the effect that a period of days is less than the period of days of the sentence. The [44a] and [44b] of the Sentencing Code under subsection (4)(a) may, in [44b](a), make provision in relation to— ## Sentence Judgment. R v. Nicholas Patrick Tibbetts. Ind. 71/15; Coram: Dobbs J. (Actg.). Date: 16.12.2016 Page 17 of 26
```html (a) sentences of imprisonment for consecutive terms; (b) sentences of imprisonment for terms which are wholly or partly concurrent; (c) periods during which a person granted bail subject to the relevant conditions is also subject to electronic monitoring required by an order made by a court or the Secretary of State. (7) In considering whether it is of the opinion mentioned in subsection (4)(b) the court must, in particular, take into account whether or not the offender has, at any time whilst on bail subject to the relevant conditions, broken either or both of them. (8) Where the court gives a direction under subsection (2) or (5) it shall state in open court- (a) the number of days on which the offender was subject to the relevant conditions, and (b) the number of days in relation to which the direction is given. (9) Subsection (10) applies where the court- (a) does not give a direction under subsection (2) but gives a direction under subsection (5), or (b) decides not to give a direction under this section. (10) The court shall state in open court- (a) that its decision is in accordance with rules made under paragraph (a) of subsection (4), or (b) that it is of the opinion mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection and what the circumstances are. (11) Subsections (7) to (10) of section 240 apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section but as if- (a) in subsection (7)- 46 ad wder a suspere ce to a s of the hic reference deg a refesention 118 to as incluen under (1)is to be er redinh an orsecd sentence to Sentencing Act relates; (ii) in paragraph (a) after “Schedule 12” there were inserted or section 119(1)(a) or (b) of the Sentencing Act; and ```
```html (b) in subsection (8) the reference to subsection (3) of section 240 is to be read as a reference to subsection (2) of this section and, in paragraph (b), after "Chapter" there were inserted or Part 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. (12) In this section- "electronic monitoring condition" means any electronic monitoring requirements imposed under section 3(6ZAA) of the Bail Act 1976 for the purpose of securing the electronic monitoring of a person's compliance with a qualifying curfew condition; "qualifying curfew condition" means a condition of bail which requires the person granted bail to remain at one or more specified places for a total of not less than 9 hours in any given day; and "related offence" means an offence, other than the offence for which the sentence is imposed ("offence A"), with which the offender was charged and the charge for which was founded on the same facts or evidence as offence A.]"

¶ [64] The prosecution rely on the cases of: R v Barrett9, and McGill v HM Advocate10.

¶ [65] The defence rely on R v Hoggard11, R v Shephard12, R v Brown13, R v Love14.

¶ [2009] LWCA Crim 2213

¶ [2013] HCJAC 150

¶ [2013] EWCA Crim 2014

¶ [2012] EWCA Crim 1523

¶ [2013] EWCA Crim 1064

¶ [2015] WL 4744478 Sentence Judgment. R v. Nicholas Patrick Tibbetts. Ind. 71/15; Coram: Dobbs J. (Actg.). Date: 16.12.2016 Page 19 of 26 ```
```html PROSECUTION SUBMISSIONS 66. The prosecution submit that The Cayman Islands gives the court a discretion and does not impose a mandatory regime. Regard has to be had to the UK procedure. That does not mean that the court has to slavishly follow the UK procedure. It means that the court can have regard to how the UK regime calculates the period and take into account the circumstances which pertain where the courts have exercised the limited discretion in the UK not to credit the full period. At the end of the day, it is in the Court's discretion whether to allow full, partial or no credit at all. 67. It is submitted that full credit for the time spent should not be given because he was only monitored for 10 hours a day and this was a nighttime curfew when the defendant would normally be at home and his liberty was less restricted. In the alternative, the prosecution submits, in effect, that the court should start the sentencing exercise again and apply an uplift to reflect the difference between UK and Cayman Islands maximum sentences. ``` This is a faithful transcription of the provided content, using Markdown for headings and paragraph structure, HTML for tables, and LaTeX for math.
```markdown # DEFENCE SUBMISSIONS The defence submit in short that the UK practice should be followed and that the defendant should be given full credit for the time spent on curfew because there was no breach of curfew. It is also submitted that no increase in sentence should be made in order to accommodate this reduction. The court’s attention is drawn to the fact that the Cayman Islands Guidelines recognise the distinction between a simple curfew and one with electronic monitoring. As already noted a number of authorities were drawn to the court’s attention – largely from the UK and one from the Cayman Islands – to make the point that it would be unjust to do other than give the defendant full credit for the time spent on curfew. Counsel maintained that this court should not deviate from the practice in the Cayman Islands of giving half credit for time spent on curfew. Apart from the case referred to in the submissions, mention was made of a drugs case where the defendant was given full credit plus it is said the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal (CICA) has indicated that giving full credit was appropriate. No cases were cited to me. ```
```markdown # SENTENCE

¶ [69] Despite the mechanistic approach to sentencing under the Guidelines, a sentence needs to reflect the Court's feel of the case, an intangible which will not find expression in the Guidelines. The guidelines are just that – guidance. The Guidelines recognise that fact by indicating that, when giving examples, the lists are not exhaustive.

¶ [70] This case is a particular example. There was no express uplift with regard to the maximum sentence in the Cayman Islands made in the computation. This was deliberate – the Court having a view of what it considered to be the appropriate sentence to be served for the particular facts and circumstances of the offence and the offender.

¶ [71] The Court is now faced with a stark choice. To start again as suggested by the Crown as their alternative submission, introducing the uplift, which would have raised the starting point to around 20 months plus, or to consider what, if any reduction should be given for the period on electronic tag, in light of the sentence announced.

¶ [72] The defences submit, the court has already passed sentence and therefore cannot increase it. They submit that Courts in the UK have never increased sentences under the slip rule. ```
```html 1 73. For a number of reasons, the court has decided to do the latter, not because of the 2 defence submissions, not least because the court was not functus, but largely because 3 the court has already gone through what it considered to be the appropriate figures. To 4 introduce the uplift would then involve an artificial exercise of justification and also, in 5 light of the curfew conditions, if a reduction were considered appropriate, without 6 indulging in some mental gymnastics, it might possibly lead to a sentence higher than 7 the court considered appropriate. 8 9 74. I take the Cayman Islands Guidelines as a starting point. There is clearly a discretion as 10 to whether, and to what extent, credit should be given. To adopt the defence 11 submission that the practice of the Cayman Islands is to automatically deduct half the 12 time on curfew, would take away the discretion clearly set out in the Guidelines. Each 13 case has to be considered on its own facts - for example the conditions of the curfew 14 will vary considerably in cases - some being more onerous than others. 15 16 75. I have considered the UK regime. I note in passing that this case would have been 17 highly unlikely to attract the statutory regime in the UK, given the offence, the 18 offender's background, good character and antecedents. Other conditions would have 19 been imposed to deal with any concerns. I will return to this point at the end. ```
The important factor in my judgment is, although there was curtailment of liberty over an extended period of time, the curtailment of liberty was not substantial. Most of it was during the night and sleeping hours. The defendant was perfectly able to conduct a social life in the early evening and weekends and still be at home by 8 p.m. He was able to go about his daily life without restriction. He was not disadvantaged save for the inconvenience of wearing a tag. Miss Fosuhene, when the court raised this issue, said that the defendant had been unable to do work he wanted to do because of the curfew. There is nothing to substantiate this assertion and I do not take it into account. I must bear in mind that there has been no breach of the conditions. The defendant may, in light of the incomplete information that was put before the court initially, have got the impression that half period of the curfew would be deducted. However, it was clear when the court asked the defendant just before the short adjournment whether he understood what was going on – he indicated that he did not. The court also made quite clear when adjourning overnight that the issue of reduction was to be decided and that there may not be any reduction. There can be no issue of legitimate expectation. The defendant has been on bail for 596 days. Half that period would be 298 days. In the exercise of my discretion I am prepared to give credit for time spent on curfew but not to the extent of the half the period spent. This is because I consider, as already noted that this was not a substantial curtailment of liberty. I refer to the case of para.e case of Br. graph 6 of thown\footnote{supra} wh ich Sentence Judgment. R v. Nicholas Patrick Tibbetts. Ind. 71/15; Coram: Dobbs J. (Actg.). Date: 16.12.2016 Page 24 of 26
```html 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 “The purpose of section 240A is to give credit to an offender who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment but before starting to serve that term has had a significant restriction on his or her liberty and by the imposition of an electronically controlled curfew.” 80. It uses the word "significant." I have used "substantial", but the point is the same. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 81. There are a number of matters I wish to raise. 82. The first is that this is a case, where in my judgment, an electronic tag was not 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 <
There have been cases I understand where the court wished to impose an electronic tag only to be told that there were no available tags. Use of this measure needs to be carefully and judiciously applied therefore.

¶ [83] A second point that I wish to raise is this: As already noted, the way this case has been conducted is unsatisfactory. Both counsel should be in a position to alert the court to matters which are relevant and central to the court’s task of sentencing and, in particular, the defence, where it is a matter that is advantageous to the client. I hope that this kind of last minute approach will not occur in the future.

¶ [84] I end by saying that none of what has gone before should be taken as under-valuing the life that was lost through this incident. Dated this the 16th December 2016 Dame Linda Dobbs Acting Judge of the Grand Court ```html 16th December 2016 Dame Linda Dobbs Acting Judge of the Grand Court ``` ```latex \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{|c|} \hline 16th December 2016 \\ \hline Dame Linda Dobbs \\ \hline Acting Judge of the Grand Court \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} ``` Sentence Judgment. R v. Nicholas Patrick Tibbetts. Ind. 71/15; Coram: Dobbs J. (Actg.). Date: 16.12.2016 Page 26 of 26