Immediate imprisonment is the appropriate sentence for causing death by dangerous driving, the Court of Appeal said on Friday.
The court ordered that Dwayne Cayasso serve 12 months, although the Grand Court had handed down a two-year sentence and then suspended it (Caymanian Compass, 16 January).
Cayasso had pleaded guilty to causing the death of his passenger, Gregory George Rankine, in an incident that occurred on 10 September 2005.
Crown Counsel Nicola Moore told the court that the Attorney General was appealing the sentence as being too lenient. She asked that ‘holistic regime’ be set down.
President Edward Zacca said the court had already ruled that the sentence has to be immediate imprisonment unless there are exceptional circumstances. He cited a 2001 case in which this was stated.
‘The courts below need to pay attention to the Court of Appeal,’ Justice Zacca said.
In the Cayasso case, the judge had not said there were exceptional circumstances, he pointed out.
Ms Moore agreed there were no exceptional circumstances. Further, there were two aggravating features – alcohol consumption and speed.
Ms Moore also argued that the sentence was wrong in law. This was because the Penal Code states that the power to suspend a sentence may not be exercised in offences against the Traffic Law, with a few exceptions. These did not include causing death by dangerous driving.
Attorney David McGrath advised the court that neither the Crown nor Defence had brought this fact the attention of the sentencing judge.
Mr. McGrath said a non-custodial sentence was clearly the intention of the judge, although it was impossible in law.
He acknowledged he had found only one local case, from 2000, in which a non-custodial sentence was passed. Having regard to the circumstances of the offence and the offender, the judge had imposed a sentence of community service.
Justice Zacca said in Cayasso’s case the judge was quite clear that imprisonment was appropriate, but ‘for reasons we don’t know’ had decided to suspend it. ‘It’s not a non-custodial sentence,’ he said.
With the court against him on that point, Mr. McGrath then argued what sentence would be appropriate. Under the principle of double jeopardy, significant regard had to be paid to Cayasso’s turmoil and distress in going through sentencing for a second time.
Mr. McGrath reviewed mitigating factors, including Cayasso’s age 22; his injuries and the fact that the deceased was his good friend; plus double jeopardy. The facts of the case could lead the court to say there was no merit in imprisoning him at this point. But the court could repeat the message of the 2001 case, Mr. McGrath suggested.
After adjournment, Justice Zacca read the judgment arrived at after consultation with Justice Ian Forte and Justice Elliott Mottley, both of whom had taken part in the open court discussion.
The Court of Appeal’s decision was that immediate imprisonment was appropriate. The Grand Court judge had considered two years to be the appropriate sentence, but had suspended it. The Penal Code prohibits suspended sentences for such an offence.
Justice Zacca said the court took into account double jeopardy. Cayasso had been told he would not have to serve the sentence by reason of it being suspended and he was released. Now he was being taken into custody, much to his distress.
In the circumstances of this case, the court considered 12 months to be the appropriate sentence.
The court’s reasons will be put into writing later, he said.
Related Videos
