Henricho Everton Swaby, the man who chopped off the hand of the woman with whom he had a long-term relationship, had his sentence reduced from 20 years to 15 years.
The Court of Appeal substituted the new sentence last week after Attorney Ailsa Williamson argued that 20 years was harsh and excessive.
Swaby, 34, had pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm with intent, kidnapping of the woman’s daughter and assaulting the girl by slapping her with the same machete he then used to injure the mother. He was sentenced on 14 December.
At the time, a charge of attempted murder was left on file. The Crown accepted the plea to grievous bodily harm partly because the maximum sentence for both is life imprisonment.
All charges arose from an incident that occurred on the night of Friday, 1 June 2007, in the car park at the Compass Centre in George Town.
In presenting the appeal, Ms Williamson first cited a Cayman case from 2001 in which a sentence for grievous bodily harm was nine years.
Court president Justice Edward Zacca replied, ‘Things have changed tremendously in the country since 2001, haven’t they?’ He referred to an increasing number of cases involving firearms and injuries inflicted with machetes.
He said Swaby’s offences involved domestic violence and the taking of the child to lure the mother.
Ms Williamson emphasised Swaby’s early guilty plea, submitting that the judge did not allow any significant discount. She pointed out that the judge was sentencing for grievous bodily harm and not for attempted murder. A sentence of 20 years meant a starting point of 30 years, she pointed out.
Typically, a person who pleads guilty receives a discount of about one-third. The discount acknowledges that a guilty plea indicates some degree of remorse, saves the court’s time and resources, and saves witnesses from having to relive the incident by giving evidence in a trial.
Ms Williamson cited various sentences for cases involving domestic violence here and in the UK. They ranged from 11 to 14 years.
In Swaby’s case, the victim’s hand had been surgically reattached, although she had not regained full use of it.
Justice Elliott Mottley referred to the unique features of this case. In ordinary circumstances, he pointed out, the woman would have run away from her attacker. In this case, she did not because he had her child.
Justice Ian Forte said he was against guideline sentences. Sentences must depend on the specific circumstances of each case, he said.
Crown Counsel John masters described the attack as a premeditated, unprovoked campaign of terror that involved a child. Kidnapping the child was a breach of trust and a tactic to appeal to a mother’s basic instinct.
Mr. Masters suggested that previous sentences have not provided enough deterrent. ‘This is one of the cases that should convey a message,’ he urged. ‘If you start involving children, be ready to face the worst.’
He reminded the court that Swaby had not just held the child to get the mother to come to him; he had slapped the girl with his machete. If the mother had not surrendered herself, injuries could have been not to the mother but to the child.
The court took a break to consider submissions. Justice Zacca then gave the decision.
He said the court was satisfied that the circumstances were such that placed this case at the highest level for sentence.
‘One can well understand the concern of the learned trial judge even after a guilty plea,’ he said. The aggravating features of the case far outweighed mitigating factors such as the guilty plea and Swaby’s previous clean record.
His victim had been subjected to a reign of terror and placed in the position of sacrificing herself for her child, Justice Zacca continued. The woman was to be commended for her actions.
The court president noted the number of domestic violence incidents taking place in Cayman and the need for the court to send a message.
Having said all that, the court determined that 15 years would meet the circumstances of this case. ‘I can understand why the judge said 20 years was appropriate – it may well have been,’ he agreed.
But perhaps 15 years was appropriate, ‘given precedents, which have not helped us in any way.’
Related Videos
