After the jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty last week, Jonathan Ramoon was sentenced on Wednesday to eight years imprisonment for possession of a firearm without a licence.
The firearm was a Ruger .38 revolver that police found in Ramoon’s room on 18 May 2003.
In passing sentence, Mr. Justice Seymour Panton said he thought every young man in this country knows that the possession of an unlicensed firearm is a serious offence that is likely to result not in payment of a fine but in a stiff term of imprisonment.
Firearms offences are very serious, especially in a country with such a small population as Cayman, he commented. They are so serious that the legislature provided for a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to 20 years.
So when a judge comes to deal with the question of sentence, he ought to take that into consideration along with the factual circumstances of the case, Mr. Justice Panton said.
Referring to mitigation by Defence Attorney James Austin-Smith, the judge said it was most unfortunate that Ramoon was expecting to be a father soon, although the birth of a child is a joyous occasion. Ramoon already had one child, but would have to leave him for a while.
There was no point in the court considering such matters because the defendant knew the consequences, the judge indicated. The court could not allow such family considerations to distract or detract from the seriousness of the situation.
Perhaps there were family members who knew Ramoon had the gun. They could help with the children, seeing that they were not minded to help prevent the commission of the offence.
There was no indication that Ramoon had used the gun. There was evidence that he had threatened his ex-wife that he would shoot her, but the judge said he was not taking that into consideration.
He also expressed the opinion that the jury had ‘quite properly’ convicted Ramoon.
Crown’s case
The case for the Prosecution was conducted by Crown Counsel Andre Mon Desir.
The main police witness said that, acting on information received, he had obtained a search warrant for Ramoon’s premises. The search was conducted in Ramoon’s presence and the gun was found wrapped in a dirty shirt in a garbage bin.
Another officer removed five bullets from the gun.
The officer who found the gun said he asked Ramoon what he could tell him about it. Ramoon was said to have replied that the gun was his. The officer then asked how long he had had it and Ramoon said about a year and a half.
Ramoon gave evidence, although he did not have to say anything. He agreed that the officer did ask those questions, but maintained that he never said the gun was his.
In his instructions to the jury, the judge had emphasised that credibility was the key in this case.
If jurors found that the police officer was not speaking the truth, their verdict would be not guilty. If they had any doubts as to whether the officer was telling the truth, their verdict would be not guilty. They could only find Ramoon guilty if they found that the officer was speaking the truth and that the gun was there with the knowledge of the accused.
During the trial, Mr. Austin-Smith had queried the source of the information police received about the gun. Mr. Mon Desir reopened the Crown’s case and called the police sergeant who had passed on the information and Ramoon’s ex-wife, from whom the information came.
This woman told the court that she had never seen Ramoon with a gun. But during an exchange between them, he had assaulted her, she had hit him and he said before the night was done he would put a bullet in her head. That was the matter she reported to police.
The defence questioned whether the ex-wife was someone who would do anything to get the accused man in trouble. Also questioned was whether other people had access to Ramoon’s room.
The defendant said he in his evidence that another police officer had threatened to frame him. If the jury found that Ramoon had been framed, he would be not guilty. If the jury had doubts as to whether he had been framed, the verdict would be not guilty.
They could only find Ramoon guilty if they were sure that the officer who found the gun was speaking the truth, and the officer who said he heard Ramoon’s answers was speaking the truth.
Related Videos
