Gunman escapes attempted murder rap

| 11/06/2013

rankine_0.JPG(CNS): A 35-year-old man from George Town was found guilty Tuesday of a number of offences, including the unlawful possession and use of a firearm and assault. However, he escaped the most serious of the charge against him of attempted murder when the presiding judge said she was unconvinced that the crown had proved Leighton Griffin Rankine Jr had intended to kill anyone. Rankine was charged with trying to kill two men in the car park of a West Bay Road nightclub in February last year after a major altercation, when he opened fire with a handgun. During the trial police officers who were called to the scene said Rankine had the weapon in his hand when they arrived and one man had been shot.

Justice Marva Macdonald-Bishop, who was presiding over the case without a jury, said in her verdict that the crown counsel did not succeed in convincing her that it was Rankine's intention to kill anyone that night. But he was found guilty of being in possession of an unlicensed firearm and the unlawful use of that weapon, as well as wounding and assault with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm.

The two complainants in this case, Mitchell Wright and Joylon Fredericks, were both treated at the hospital in George Town that night, one for a gunshot wound and the other for wounds sustained in the  fight, which happened in the car park of Club 7, where Rankine was accused of shooting at the men.

Rankine was remanded in custody after the verdict and the sentencing hearing was set for Thursday. Rankine is looking at a statutory minimum of ten years for the possession of the weapon alone. However, because of the use of the weapon and the assault, Rankine could be looking at an even longer stretch.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Crime

About the Author ()

Comments (28)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Sounds like we have some wanta be lawyers in the thread or splitting hairs is a hobby with too much time on their hands.

    When the law eludes common sense there is something wrong.

    I don't believe this verdict sends the correct message to the wanta be gangsters in the country and will haunt our legal system in the future.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I thought at first glance this was Snoop Dog…..

  3. Anonymous says:

    Last time i checked a gun was built to kill..what more intent do you need?

  4. Anonymous says:

    So if I go to court for DUI can I say I was drinking and forgot I was driving?

  5. Anonymous says:

    The prosecution fail to prove intent.. This is the crowns fault not the police. I suppose the good news is the police got to the crime in time and arrested this person. So he goes away for ten years. At least he didn’t get off completely like other cases in the past.
    So over all a good job by all I recon, a criminal is put away for at least ten years at a cost of 50k per year, were he can get his weed, cel phone and all the amenities of home for free…

  6. Anonymous says:

    He used the good ole "ooops" defense.

  7. Rorschach says:

    Anywhere else in the world EXCEPT one where the police are led by the British, and this chap would have never faced a trial…and for the record, REAL police officers and professionals aren't trained to "wound"…they are trained that when deadly force is is deadly..

    • Anonymous says:

      Not all shots fired by law enforcement are intended to kill…

      • Rorschach says:

        Au Contraire…in the REAL WORLD..police officers or soldiers are NOT authorised to use Deadly force..and shooting someone IS deadly force, UNLESS life, be it there own or someone else's,  is believed to be in imminent danger..and when that force is applied, it MUST be used in a deadly manner in order for it to be lawful…that is not to say that EVERY police shooting results in a death, but the intent MUST be to kill, otherwise it is an unlawful application of deadly force…

        • Anonymous says:

          Nonsense. You should get off your high horse and join us in the REAL WORLD! (and if you are speaking of the REAL WORLD of law enforcement I strongly suspect that you have seen the film S.W.A.T and now you are clearly an expert in police firearms training!)

          Police marksmen (the world over) are trained to stop the threat, not necessarily to apply deadly force. They are trained to shoot at the central body mass (chest) in order to stop the threat. That may result in the suspect dying, but that should not be the intent. This is why the two suspects in London survived. The shot was aimed at their central body mass and they survived. Simple. No mythical 'aiming for the hand / arm / leg' training. The reason officers are trained to shoot the central mass is because there is a greater likelihood of hitting the suspect in a high stress environment.

          There are circumstances, such as a suspected suicide bomber, where the police will aim for a head shot in order to kill the subject, but this is purely to stop the bomber detonating their IED.

          You have no idea what you are talking about. If you know so much about how police are trained and you are so capable of doing the job – join up and prove it. I very much doubt you would pass the training.

    • Anonymous says:


      With all due respect, that is a bunch of bu** shi* that you've posted here.

      Tell that crap to the British police markswoman who took down the two Islamist jihadists who knocked down and chopped up the soldier in London just two weeks ago.

      The video footage was broadcast all over the world so anyone who wish to see for themselves can see…British firearms police are as  REAL as they come….and 'deadly' force is not always used in shooting a suspect.

      This police officer emerges from the back seat of her vehicle, under the cover of theother police officers when these two charged at the police vehicle…

      And shot them both, without killing them…one of the most professional piece of marksmanship I have ever seen from a police officer…or anyone else.

      You cannot interrogate dead men…and the information that these two have to provide on their actions and motives is much more valuable than  their lives in revenge for who they killed.

      Did they prove a deadly threat in attacking the police vehicle with their killing weapons in hand ?  That is for the police officers to decide on the spur of the moment…an average person defending themselves with a firearm in such a situation would have been MORE than justified in using deadly force and shooting to kill them.

      So don't be talking smack about REAL police officers aren't trained to wound, rather than kill…that is just a bunch of nonsense.

      • Rorschach says:

        When you see the backlash that is going to occur in this incident where deadly force was used, but in a non-lethal way, you and everyone else are going to understand that lethal force MUST be used in a lethal cannot justify using LETHAL force to "wound" someone..otherwise you could have used "LESS than lethal" force to accomplish the same goal..that is what you are misunderstanding about's not that I don't commend the officer for her "professional piece of marksmanship"..she was in a tough situation..but if you are going to decide to escalate to the use of DEADLY MUST be intended to be deadly….

        • Anonymous says:


          Thanks heavens you're not a police officer with firearms training and certification !

          Again, you're talking a bunch of nonsense out of your ar*e !

          The backlash of using deadly force, 'with lethal intent', as you put it, by police officers in Tottenham, London when shooting and killing Mark Duggan led to some of the worst rioting and looting that Britain has seen in decades…and the country is still a tinderbox of racial hatred and underlying tension.

          Don't you think the Metropolitan Police's decision to try to not kill these men while stopping their rampage was a deliberate decision based on those facts and conditions ?

          Then again, you don't live in Great Britain so you can run off at the mouth, saying anything that comes to your mind without ANY factual evidence to back it up.

          Its a good thing 'arm-chair' cops like you will never get a chance to carry out your fantasies in real life…

          The rest of us can sleep much easier in our beds knowing that !



          • Rorschach says:

            Assume much??   You really have NO idea of my qualifications OR experience…but I can tell you are WRONG on BOTH counts…I have been on the wrong end of a firearm on more than one occasion and the one thing they all have in common is I am here to write about it and the person who pointed it, is not…It was never proven that Mark Duggan had a firearm when he was shot by CO19, whereas in this instance, the Firearms officer testifed that upon his arrival, not only did the accused still have a firearm in his hand, but he refused to drop it when commanded to do so…I am not going to debate this any furthur, suffice it to say, that we have differing opinions on how this incident should have been handled..

  8. Anonymous says:

    I was wondering the same thing…last time I checked shooting someone wasn't a new way to say hi. What exactly is the judge trying to say with this one?!

  9. Cheese Face says:

    I'm sorry, he shot at someone, and hit them, but its not attempted murder?


    • SSM345 says:

      Key word they could not prove: INTENTION (mens rea). His lawyer would have simply argued there was no intention to kill;

      which is why he was found guilty of GBH which can carry a heavy sentence.

      But what will happen is he will end up serving all his time concurrently as is the norm (i.e. all the terms run together as opposed to one after the other).

      And he will be back out in 10yrs….to shoot people again.


    • Anonymous says:

      DURING THE TRIAL….it was learnt that he could hardly recall he was in an altercation as he was heavily intoxicated.  In fact this guy ended up in the hosiptal, initally in intensive care for the wounds and injuries he received that night…including damage to his eye…all of which he has little memory of.  So bright-star you prove intent now.

      • Anonymous says:

        Oh yes, let's excuse his intent to kill someone because he was drunk.  The fact he was drunk turns this from attempted murder to a big misunderstanding.  I only hope when somebody who is drunk does something to you, you are so quick to forgive and forget "because they couldn't remember."

  10. Anonymous says:

    If you shoot someone —– YOU ARE TRYING TO KILL THEM unless you are a trained law enforcement officer or professional that is trying to wound!!! Guns are for KILLING.

    • Yup says:

      Hey, I use mine to crack nuts…

      • Anonymous says:

        To : Submitted by Yup (not verified) on Tue, 06/11/2013 – 15:30.                                         Your own I hope.

        • Anonymous a seaman of 22 years says:

          What happened to the Police Officer on Cayman Brac that imported a fire arm without a permit and no License ?

    • Anonymous says:

      That is the premise of British law in Britain or Cayman, when a firearm is used to injure or wound someone…that the person doing th shooting INTENDED to kill the other party, thus an attempted murder charge, simply because the person COULD have been killed, or the shooter COULD have killed them.

      Obviously the courts look at things more closely than the police and prosecutors…they have to PROVE to the court the 'intent to kill', it is not accepted by the court automatically.

      In this case the judge was not convinced that the 'intent to kill' case was proven.

      The other side of the argument is that if a shooter intended to kill someone, they would have done so…and not just have wounded them; its a mistake to believe that because firearms are generally illegal to own without a license in British territories, that they people who own and use them illegally aren't competent and accurate shooters.

      In this case, this guy was probably so freaking drunk that he couldn't have hit a barn door from 10 yards intentionally…very hard to prove intended murder if he hit his target by mistake, isn't it ? LOL!!!!

      • Diogenes says:

        Managed to hit the other guy tho – so not that incapacitated. And when he pulled the trigger he intended what?  To say nothing of his "mens rea" before getting drunk when deciding to pack a LOADED firearm to a night club.  Mens cannot ever be proved, absent a mind reader, but it sure as hell can be inferred, and I am at a complete loss as to what the judge thought the alternative intention was – not only packing a gun, but pulling it, aiming, shooting and hitting another person.  Sheesh.