Man had stun gun at nightclub

A man seen with a stun gun in a nightclub was sentenced in Summary Court last week for possession of an offensive weapon and disorderly conduct. 

Crown Counsel Nicole Petit said the man was arrested after an incident at the Jet Nightclub around 2.10am last 18 December. He was observed in a bathroom by an off-duty officer, who referred to the object he saw as a Taser. 

Ms Petit told Magistrate Nova Hall that the officer saw the man operate the device, which created an electric shock, and heard him tell a companion, “I would put this on the f____s.”  

The officer requested that the device be handed over, but the man refused. With the assistance of security, he was escorted outside the premises. While there he became abusive, appeared intoxicated and threw himself on the ground without provocation. After his arrest for the offensive weapon, he was transported to the police station and on the way called one of the officers a name that resulted in the usual charge of disorderly conduct. 

Defence attorney John Fox said his client’s behaviour was not that of someone planning to do harm to another individual. 

“I am instructed he had not come across this item previously and it was more of an experiment on his part after he found it near by … It’s a Taser disguised as a mobile phone,” Mr. Fox said. It was worked by various application buttons that lit up and the young man pressed a few. 

“He admits handling it more with curiosity and stupidity rather than any intent,” the attorney said. His client had been drinking and was embarrassed by the whole episode and had already apologised to the officers involved, Mr. Fox assured the court.  

Court records showed the case first came to court on 28 June. Chief Magistrate Margaret Ramsay-Hale bailed the defendant with a curfew from 10pm to 6am and a condition that he not enter or remain in any liquor-licensed premises. She ordered a social inquiry report. 

On that occasion, Mr. Fox advised the court last week, he had told the chief magistrate he could not find any sentencing precedents and she had indicated she was not aware of any previous such cases. He suggested this was “probably a first for the Cayman Islands”. 

Mr. Fox made a special plea in mitigation, asking the court to not to record a conviction. 

He said the pre-sentence report was favourable to the accused, who had no previous convictions and was assessed as being at low risk of re-offending. He was in full-time employment and had qualified for a significant scholarship for studies relating to the financial industry. He accepted that he had brought embarrassment to his family and had put his career in jeopardy. 

“A recorded conviction will inhibit his ability to travel and take up the scholarship awarded,” Mr. Fox said. He urged the court not to let “a mobile phone Taser” blight the career of a young Caymanian who had a lot to offer the community. 

The magistrate replied, “Frequently people come before me and it is argued no conviction should be recorded because it will affect their future. I am of the view people should accept the consequences of their behaviour.” 

In this case, however, she had reviewed the report put together by a senior probation officer and she would rely on it. 

“If the Taser had been used on anyone, my approach would be very different,” she said. 

She did not record any conviction and discharged the defendant subject to the condition that he commit no offence withing the next two years. She ordered him to pay $600 in costs. The weapon was to be forfeited to the Crown and destroyed. Because no conviction was recorded, the defendant’s name is not reported.