The Court of Appeal has refused Omar Badou Robinson’s leave to appeal his seven-year jail sentence imposed for wounding a man at a gas station shop.
Robinson, 40, had applied for leave to appeal his sentence, passed by Justice Dale Palmer in August 2023, following his judge-alone trial and conviction of wounding with intent.
Robinson had been found guilty of attacking the victim at Brown’s On-The-Run Esso service station on Shamrock Road in George Town on 18 July 2022, where both men had gone to get food.
During his Grand Court trial in 2023, Robinson had claimed he had acted in self-defence and that the injuries had been caused unintentionally by a ring he was wearing, insisting that at no time had he used a blade.
In the case, the prosecution had said the attack followed a confrontation caused by a misunderstanding during which Robinson used a sharp blade secreted in his hand to slash the victim’s neck several times, inflicting wounds which required 24 sutures.
“The medical evidence was that the complainant’s condition was not serious and the injuries were unlikely to be permanent. However, had it not been for the intervention of a person at the scene, the likelihood was that the complainant’s injuries would have been significantly worse,” the appeal court judges said.
The judges noted that Robinson had two previous convictions for offences involving violence when he in his early 20s. The first was for an assault and the second for wounding with intent, also committed at On-The-Run Esso service station on Shamrock Road, for which he was sentenced on a guilty plea to six years’ imprisonment.
Acknowledged anger issue
The Court of Appeal panel of three judges heard that at Robinson’s sentencing hearing in 2023, in a letter presented to the judge, he had apologised for his actions, acknowledged he had difficulty controlling his temper, and said he was deeply remorseful. The judge had also been provided with a letter from Bodden Town MP Dwayne Seymour, who stated that Robinson was a caring and friendly person whom he had known for 30 years, was well respected in the community and desired to be a good citizen.
At an early point in the trial, Robinson had offered to plead guilty to the lesser offence of wounding, which had been rejected by the Crown. Robinson’s counsel had asked Palmer to take this guilty plea offer into consideration when determining a sentence.
Considerations for sentencing
Under the Penal Code, the maximum sentence for wounding with intent is life imprisonment.
Palmer determined that, under Cayman’s sentencing guidelines for violent offences, Robinson’s offence fell into the category of high culpability, because he used a blade concealed in his left palm to slash the victim, and that more serious injuries could have been inflicted if a stranger had not pulled Robinson off the victim.
The sentencing judge had also taken into account that the provocation that led to the attack “was something that a man of his age and experience ought to have ignored”, and that there was a degree of premeditation evidenced Robinson’s “repeated charging at the complainant or in his direction”.
The appeal court justices also stated that Palmer had noted that “although the video footage did not reveal when the applicant [Robinson] armed himself, it showed the applicant scanning his surroundings before the final attack, even though he had already purchased his food and he already had the blade in his hand when he was rocked by the complainant’s defensive blow”.
He had also taken into account the psychological impact on the victim who was traumatised by the incident.
Palmer had found that the offence fell within the category range 2 under the sentencing guidelines, which had a starting point six years’ imprisonment.
He had noted a social inquiry report found that Robinson had a pattern of violent behaviour while under the influence of alcohol, and that he was assessed to be at a high-to-medium risk of reoffending.
In mitigation, Palmer had found that Robinson, a married man, was a hard and industrious worker whose family was dependent upon him for financial support. He also found there was a “moderate level of provocation prior to the incident which had an effect on a man [of his] temperament”, and that “though a bit belated”, he had apologised for what he had done and acknowledged his anger issue.
The judge had added five years’ imprisonment to the starting point of six years in view of the aggravating features, for a total of 11 years, and then deducted four years for the mitigating factors, which gave a total sentence of seven years.
Sentence ‘fully justified’
The appeals court justices, in their ruling, delivered orally on 15 May last year and published on 19 Jan., said Palmer “wrongly, appeared to regard as an aggravating factor the applicant’s insistence at trial that he did not use a blade to injure the complainant in the face of CCTV footage showing he clearly did”.
They added that the trial judge had also appeared not to recognise when calculating the appropriate length of sentence, that the starting point was on the basis of a not-guilty plea.
“That said, however, a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment was fully justified,” the judges wrote. “It cannot begin to be held to be manifestly excessive. It follows that this application is refused.”
Related Videos
