The need to deter people from drinking and driving is sufficient reason to impose a custodial sentence, Justice Alex Henderson said on Friday after hearing the circumstances in which a pedestrian was struck and killed.
He made the comment in handing down a term of 15 months imprisonment for Stephen Harrison Ebanks, who pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol and causing death.
The incident leading to the charge occurred along West Bay Road on a Friday night, 10 December 2004. Ebanks was 22 at the time.
The victim was Jeffrey Keith Grimmett, 43, an American national residing in Cayman.
The judge said he accepted Ebanks’ genuine remorse, the unlikelihood he would ever again offend, his previous good character and his guilty plea.
He said he accepted all these things but he could not accept the message a non-custodial sentence would send to young people who will be tempted, after having too much alcohol, to get in their vehicles and drive.
Crown Counsel Trevor Ward gave the background to the charge. He said Ebanks was driving south, toward George Town. Traffic was slow-moving because of a concert being held at the Royal Palms.
The area of West Bay Road in which the accident occurred consists of two traffic lanes and a centre lane for turning, Mr. Ward told the court.
As Ebanks approached the Royal Palms, he left the south-bound lane and entered the centre lane, where he struck Mr. Grimmett, who was crossing the roadway.
The victim was thrown into the air and eventually dragged under the defendant’s vehicle some 95 feet. He sustained multiple injuries to the head and torso. At George Town Hospital he was pronounced dead on arrival.
Shortly after the accident, around 10.40 pm, police arrived at the scene and saw Ebanks sitting on the kerb. An officer asked if he had been drinking and Ebanks said he had had six drinks. A roadside breath test recorded a reading of .174.
At the police station, at 11.57pm, a subsequent test produced a reading of .159. The legal limit in Cayman is .100.
Mr. Ward said an accident reconstructionist visited the scene and concluded that Ebanks failed to see the pedestrian in the turning lane. He based this conclusion on the absence of any scuff marks in the area of impact.
The expert also gave his opinion that the impact occurred at a low speed.
Three days after the incident, Ebanks was interviewed by police. He told them had attended the concert at Royal Palms. He consumed four or five rum and cokes over a two and a half to three hour period.
He left the concert and went to his vehicle, which he had parked to the north. As he was driving south and approaching the Royal Palms, it occurred to him to pull in to see if a relative needed a lift.
Because traffic was slow he went into the centre lane to turn. A figure suddenly emerged from between the vehicles in the left lane – he had not seen this person before – and that was when the collision occurred.
Defence Attorney David McGrath said this was a case that did not have any aggravating features except for the alcohol reading. There was nothing in law to prohibit Ebanks from the manoeuvre he was making at the time.
Mr. McGrath said that at the time of impact, the airbags in Ebanks’ vehicle went off: he had little or no recollection of what happened for the next 10 or 15 seconds.
He asked to express publicly his client’s contrition, telling the court Ebanks had written to Mr. Grimmett’s family to apologise. ‘Nothing I say in mitigation should undermine the genuineness of his apology,’ Mr. McGrath said.
He quoted UK Lord Chief Justice Peter Taylor who said: ‘We wish to stress that human life cannot be restored nor can its loss be measured by the length of a prison sentence. We recognise that no term of months or years imposed on the offender can reconcile the family of a deceased victim to their loss, nor will it ever cure their anguish.’
Mr. McGrath said Ebanks had never been before the court until this happened. He was gainfully employed with good prospects; he came from a good family and had numerous character references. One letter was from a counselling centre Ebanks attended after the incident.
He asked the court to consider imposing a sentence of community service that would have Ebanks speak to young people in schools and other settings about the dangers of drinking and driving. There was a local precedent, he said. In that precedent case, the driver was 18.
Mr. McGrath also cited previous cases in which sentences were 12 and 15 months.
The maximum for driving under the influence of alcohol and causing death is 10 years.
In passing sentence on Ebanks, Justice Henderson reviewed how the accident occurred. If those were the only facts to consider, it would have been an unfortunate accident of the type that happens with relative frequency. However, there was more – the drinking.
When the vehicle struck the pedestrian, it did not stop. The judge said he inferred that Ebanks’ consumption of alcohol had contributed significantly to his failure to see the pedestrian.
When the airbags inflated, that undoubtedly confused him and made it more difficult to stop, the judge said. But he thought it fair to infer also that the consumption of alcohol contributed to Ebanks’ failure to stop the vehicle until after the victim had been dragged a considerable distance.
There are guidelines for sentencing in cases of this type, he said. With no aggravating features, he would start at three years.
He accepted the mitigation put forward by Mr. McGrath and said Ebanks was entitled to a significant discount for his guilty plea.
Drinking and driving has been on the rise in Cayman, the judge said, and road deaths have reached a level that is of concern to everyone.
The need to deter others from drinking and driving was sufficient basis for imposing a custodial sentence, he said.
In addition to his 15-month sentence, Ebanks was also disqualified from driving for three years thereafter.
Related Videos
