Teen gunman has sentence cut on appeal
(CNS): A teenager who was found guilty of robbery and firing at a police officer while trying to make his escape has had his 16 year prison sentence reduced on appeal to 9 years. The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal found that the trial judge who sentenced Elmer Wright to an accumulation of 16 years in jail for robbery, possession of an unlicensed firearm and ammunition as well as the unlawful discharge of that weapon had not considered the young defendant's age when he committed the crime, although he was 18 years old when he was tried and sentenced over a night time gas station heist.
Wright, who is now nineteen years old, was the only person ever charged in the case and was convicted of a catalogue of offences relating to the armed robbery that took place at Mostyns Esso in Bodden Town in 2010. The teen, who was 16 at the time of the crime, was said to be one of four men that planned and executed the robbery at the small gas station and community shop at around 10:30 on a Friday night in June. The robbers stole around $1000 during the hold-up, in which a customer was gun-butted by one of the offenders.
As the robbers fled the store, police picked up their trail and gave chase towards the Northward area. When the getaway car finally stopped the robbers got out and ran off. However, before the young teen fled he turned and fired a shotgun on the police patrol vehicle. He was later apprehended by the police a short distance away with various incriminating pieces of evidence including shotgun shells and money taken from the gas station.
After a judge alone trial before Justice Smith, Wright was found guilty of the robbery, the possession of the gun and ammunition and the unlawful discharge of a weapon but he was acquitted of attempted murder.
The judge said at the time of sentencing that despite the defendant’s age, it was important for the court to send a clear message, otherwise public confidence in the justice system was at risk.
“The court must bear in mind the welfare of young offenders but when they deliberately commit serious offences, as the case now before the court, there is a legitimate public expectation that the defendant is severely punished,” he said. The judge added that the sentence had to also serve as a warning to other would-be offenders of the gravity of the offence and the risks associated with behaving in the same way.
He gave Wright the statutory minimum ten years for the possession of the gun, twelve years for the robbery and seven years for the possession of the ammunition which he ordered to run concurrently. However, he gave the teen a further four years jail time for the firing of the weapon, which he ordered to run consecutively because, he said, it was a separate offence as it occurred while the gang members were making their escape and not at the scene of the crime. The result was a sixteen year prison term.
In response to the appeal claim filed on behalf of the young offender by his attorney Nick Hoffman, of Priestley’s, that the sentence was “manifestly harsh”, the Court of Appeal agreed.
It found that the judge should have given greater consideration to the fact that the teen was only 16 when the crime was committed and he could have sentenced him in line with the youth justice law. The appeal court said he was wrong to think he was bound by the statutory minimums or sentencing guidelines designed for older offenders. The legal panel of senior judges said the trial judge should have had greater consideration for the totality of the situation, although they agreed that the teenager had committed a serious offence.
The court set aside the sentences and imposed new ones that they felt were more appropriate. They reduced the robbery sentence to seven years, the possession of the ammunition to 4 years and the ten year mandatory minimum to seven years, all of which they said should be concurrent.
They agreed with the judge’s decision to impose a four year sentence on the teenager for shooting at the police patrol car but ordered that two of those four years should run concurrently and the remaining two consecutively, resulting in a new nine year prison term for the young offender, which would include the time the he has spent in jail since his arrest in 2010.
Category: Crime
No time off for this little punk until he sings about his fellow gun criminals. The send him back to the country from whence he came.
Unnana see nothing yet!
Wait to Human Rights frees them all in November – we will be in HOT water then!
Coming to your neighbourhood in a tinted Honda Civic in around lets say 5 years !
Disgraceful…..
Third world country. Third world justice. This should be obvious by now.
I am so angry at this decision that words cannot describe how I feel. All I have seen in the last few days have beenreduced sentences, one after another and I have to ask myself where is the logic? This one really puts the icing on the cake. Our society cannot get any better when decisions like this are given. What about the trauma that the victims experienced, the fact that they could have been killed, as the perpetrator demonstrated he was willing to use the firearm to shoot at the police. In my view he should have had his sentence doubled, not halved. This is utterly disgusting. Isn't the courts there to mete out Justice to help right wrongs against society and to protect society from those intent on it harm? The victims have lost, the police have lost time and effort in attending court to give evidence when they could have been on the streets, the government has lost as they no doubt had to pay the defendants legal fees and society has lost as the defendant has shown no remorse, has not disclosed who the other participants were. Oh my God, I am so angry. I hope the Crown appeals this to a higher court. This is rediculous.
A Jamaican fellow gets 12 years for trying to rob a gas station with a fake gun, this fellow not only robs a gas station, harass customer, fired the gun, and tried to kill the arresting officers by shooting at him with real gun not a water gun and only gets nine (9) years…… really…… really.. WHY???
We should send a very strong message, 15 years minimum if found with an illegal firearm, 10 additional years if it is fired, 15 more years if it is fired at a cop and 10 years for those hiding the criminal. NO Excuses… Lets give the police the support they need
The message is only home grown criminality will be tolerated. All others will be persecuted to the full extent of the law.
Shame he didn't offer anything up on the other 3 cohorts to EARN a reduction in sentence. Those other 3 are still out there, and he'll rejoin them all the sooner now.
This is utter and complete CRAP! How are we the public supposed to have any faith in true justice being served? This encourages the public to take matters into their own hands; why look to the judicial system to support our rights as law abiding citizens when the criminals get slaps on their wrists and then come back to seek us out after we give testimony in court???
If I have a gun in my business or home I'm SURE I would be given the 10 year sentence but this wart on the face of society has an illegal firearm & ammo, robs someone at gunpoint, assaults the person, flees the scene, attempts to KILL a police officer and then gets LESS than the mandatory gun possesion charge??? What a monumental joke.
I further sympathize with the RCIP, for all the risk they undertake and the hard work and effort they put into their investigation, gathering evidence and presenting their case, this is their reward? Can we even blame them now when they are less than enthusiastic to respond to calls and actually do their jobs? What support is the judiciary giving them?
I for one will not be surprised when this fool is back out on the street and kills someone. Shame on the Court of Appeal for this one, utter and complete SHAME!
And this is why there are so many of these stupid little idiot boys running around the place. These dumb appeals and reduced sentences. When you are 18 years old, you are a grown a** man. You obtained a firearm. robbed a gas station, ran from police and fired at them. Age is no excuse! 16 years?? In the UK he would've gotten 25. Lock them up and throw away the key and do us all a favour i say. Don't be surprised when he ends up shooting somebody in 6 years (after his further reduced sentence for good behaviour.) You made this mistake before and an innocent child was killed. Stop the BS and lock these stupid little b*stards up for good!!
Why do we have a mandatory 10 year prison term for gun possession and it only applies to some??? Reducing a criminal's sentence sends the wrong message period, regardless of their age. And to fire a weapon at anyone, particularly one who is trying to enforce the law should be considered attempted murder period. Now other disturbed and trouble youth have nothing to serve as a deterrent if they are considering the same acts because they know they can either get away with it or appeal their sentence. Shameful system we have here when a judge is able to override a previous judges sentence and reduce it. I am all for overriding to increase the sentence but not to reduce them. A criminal is a criminal and at 16 he is well equipped to know that robbing anyone and using a gun to do so is WRONG. I applaud the first judges judgement efforts. Does the public have the right to appeal these cases? After all our safety is in jeopardy when these criminals get out at any age.
I couldn't have said it better myself 08:14. What if the police officer had in fact been shot and killed? Would they still believe that the previous sentence was too harsh?? I just don't get it. They should have left the sentence as is and if anything allow him to apply for parole after 10-12 years depending on his behavious while in custody. These criminals will never learn from their mistakes, if the minute they feel like appealing they actually get away with it…
I don't doubt that the appeal court was within the limits of the current law. However, it has to be questioned whether the appeal process is completely out of step with the community. The only way to bring it back into line is to legislate to limit the appeal court's discretion.
At that time the guy knew what he was doing.
He was commiting an adult crime, so should pay an idult price.
Did he give the names of his friends ? What are their names ?
The victims are marked for life . . .
And why does it 2 years to this this case tried ?
What is the sense of a mandatory 10 year sentence if you can reduce it ?
He'll be out in 6 and well trained/prepared for a criminal life.
Conclusion: If you are a young caymanian with no job nor education, you parents don't care, then there is a solution. Just become a criminal. Just make sure you start at the age of 16.
If I remember the details of the case correctly, this young thug Discharged the firearm (shotgun) in the direction of the police that were persuing him.
In any country I know of, that is ATTEMPTED (Capital) MURDER.
What the Judge should have done was INCREASE his sentence, not reduce it.
I don't care how young he is, an example NEEDS to be made of him to deter other youngsters from persuing criminal behavior.
This is justice.? No, this is a mockery of justice and a slap in the face for every law-abiding man, woman and child in this country. The judiciary should be ashamed of themselves.
So this criminal will be out after he serves how much time???
Yes he is young. But has he shown any remorse for what he did
Has he apologised to the officers who he shot at.
We will see this guy back on the streets in less than 6yrs and when we do don’t be surprised if he is behind a gun and a mask robbing another gas station.
Let’s just hope his aim isn’t any better or we will also be reading about an officer shot in the line of duty
.
The criminals have all the justice and the upright citizens are looking more like criminals. Why bother to try the criminals if the Court of Appeal is constantly reducing their sentences. Another waste of the country's money. That gives the Police encouragement to do their jobs. Does it?