R v Damaine Sterling
| Jurisdiction | Bahamas |
| Judge | Mr. Honourable Justice Andrew Forbes |
| Judgment Date | 13 February 2024 |
| Docket Number | CRI/VBI NO.87 /06/2020 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Bahamas) |
Mr. Honourable Justice Andrew Forbes
CRI/VBI NO.87 /06/2020
IN THE SUPREME COURT
Criminal Side
Mrs. Shanda Cooper-Rolle & Mr. Sean Novell Smith on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr. K. Brian Hanna on behalf of Mr. Sterling
On the 19th July 2023 the convict appeared to the Criminal Court and entered a guilty plea to the charge of Manslaughter and not guilty to the offence of Murder after Counsel for the convict and Counsel for the Office of Director of Public Prosecution had a discussion. The Plea was accepted and the convict was subsequently convicted on the 19 th July 2023 for the Offence of Manslaughter contrary to section 293 of the Penal Code. That the convict who was represent by Counsel Mr. K. Brian Hanna represented that the Convict should be provided with a probation report to aid in sentencing. A probation report was, in fact, prepared by Chief Probation Officer Ms. Wynelle Goodridge and Mr. Laish Boyd Jr. as a Trainee Probation Officer and dated the 14 th November 2023. The report sourced information from the convict's step father Mr. George Pinder, his younger sister Ms. lyanna Pinder, the older brother the victim Mr. Carlton Russell, niece of the victim Ms. Cassandra Russell, and the convict himself. The report also sought to rely upon the Antecedents of the convict from the Criminal Records Office. Counsel for the OPP made recommendations as to an appropriate sentence and Counsel for Mr. K. Brian Hanna made pleas in mitigation.
The brief facts were extracted from the statements of the Officers conducting the investigations as well as the statements made by the convict to the Police when questioned. According to Officer Curtiss on the 14 th February 2020, he reported received information form Ms. Cassandra Russell that she had not seen her uncle Jamaal Russell since the 12 th February 2020. That he along with other Officers entered the residence of the deceased and commenced a search where they observed that the bedsheets had been removed. They also observed that the lights were off but the television was on but the screen was black. They further observed a gray bin resting beneath a southern window when opened they discovered the body of the deceased.
That during the investigation the Officers spoke to several individuals and received information. That as a result they retrieved a vehicle from a service road. They conducted further inquiries and later arrested the convict. That when questioned under caution the convict noted that he had a verbal altercation with the deceased which resulted in him strangulating the deceased. That when questioned he further conceded that he took personal effects of the deceased and burnt them through the service road and had driven in the deceased's vehicle and abandoned it in the service road.
There were also text messages (although not admitted into evidence as the convict elected to plead guilty most certainly would have been admissible) which appear to suggest that there was a previous interaction between the convict and the accused. During the record of interview and later a full statement of the convict, he stated that he and the deceased communicated via Facebook and WhatsApp. And that he was of the opinion the deceased was female. He then indicated that he visited the deceased, that they drank and smoked some weed as he put it. That he alleges that the deceased offered to perform oral sex. That he refused and that the deceased then started removing his clothing and the convict suggested that the deceased was moving like a man and implied that this observation appeared to have triggered the deceased and that they got into an altercation. At which point he retrieved a scarf and used it to strangle the deceased. According to the convict, he then proceeded to search the room of the deceased.
That he then removed several items and also took the deceased vehicle. When he couldn't start the vehicle, he proceeded to return to the room of the deceased and look up how to start the vehicle and thereafter left the area in the vehicle. It should be noted that in addition to several personal items the convict also removed the bedsheets and took several items with him into a service road where he proceeded to burn these items. He also took monies from the room of the deceased which was later recovered.
According to the information supplied in the Probation Report, the convict was the fourth of five siblings and was born in St. Thomas, Jamaica. That he migrated to the Bahamas at the age of five (5) along with his mother and older sister; that he was later enrolled at Maurice Moore Primary School where he completed his Elementary studies. He advanced to Jack Hayward Junior High School and completed grade Nine (9) after which he transferred to Jack Hayward Senior High School and was enrolled until grade eleven (11). He claimed he attained (7) seven Bahamas Junior Certificate (BJC) and two (2) Bahamas General Certificate of Secondary Education (BGCSE).
Upon leaving school the convict entered the employment arena where he commenced making natural juice for sale. That he then became a busboy at Zorba's Restaurant and prior to Dorian he worked on several construction sites.
The Step father of the convict, Mr. George Pinder, described his son as perfect. He doesn't recall having to discipline him as he was reluctant to do so; however, he would have conversations. Mr. Pinder expressed that Mr. Sterling was involved with negative company and elected to plead guilty to avoid wasting the time of the Court or implicating associates. Mr. Pinder expressed shock regarding the current circumstances and considered the behavior out of character for the convict and that he, himself, was strongly opposed to “gayness”. The younger sister of the convict described their relationship as close and considered him to be quiet and a good person.
The Court notes that in the Probation report the victim's niece, Ms. Cassandra Russell, indicated that she shared a close bond with her uncle and that he was becoming deaf. That the family was aware that her uncle was gay since his youth and was infected with HIV and would occasionally wear women's clothing. She laments that she was asleep in the room next door and heard something but assumed her uncle was entering or leaving the house and only after not seeing him she became concerned.
Mr. Carlton Russell, the older brother of the deceased, also indicated that the family knew that the deceased was gay. He recalls an incident when he and his brother stopped at Cost Right and his brother went into store and retrieve some items and refused Mr. Russell's efforts to reimburse the deceased. That he was also aware that the convict worked at the store and assumed that the deceased got the items from the convict.
That upon the consultation for the Probation Report, the Convict is single and without any children. That the Convict acknowledged that he met the deceased via Facebook and communicated for about three weeks and was of the opinion that the deceased was a female. He further notes had he been sober at the time the incident with the deceased, the incident wouldn't have happen and regrets his actions. The convict indicates that he doesn't smoke cigarettes, but does smoke marijuana and occasionally consumes alcoholic beverages, namely, wine and Cuba libre. That he attended the Central Church of God weekly and in future intends to become a certified welder and eventually own his own architectural firm.
The Penal Code prescribes as follows:
“ 290. (1) Whoever intentionally causes the death of another person by any unlawful harm is guilty of murder, unless his crime is reduced to manslaughter by reason of such extreme provocation, or other matter of partial excuse, as in this Title hereafter mentioned.
291. (I) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary-·-
(a) every person who is convicted of murder falling within section 290(2)(a) to (i) shall be sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life;
(b) every person convicted of murder to whom paragraph (a) does not apply-
(i) shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life; or
(ii) shall be sentenced to such other term given the circumstances of the offence or the offender as the court considers appropriate being within the range of thirty to sixty years imprisonment:
provided that where a person under eighteen years of age is convicted of murder he shall not be sentenced in accordance with this subsection but instead subsection (4) shall apply to the sentencing of such person….”
In this case the convict accepted a plea of guilty of Manslaughter albeit he was charged with Murder and in this case the Penal Code section 293 states as follows: “ 293. Whoever commits manslaughter by negligence shall be liable to imprisonment for five years; and whoever commits manslaughter in any other case shall be liable to imprisonment for life… 11
In deciding the appropriate sentence consideration must be given to the general principles of sentencing Halbury's Laws Third ed. Vol 11(2) at paragraphs 1188 notes:
‘ The aims of sentencing are now considered to be retribution,
deterrence and protection and modern sentencing policy reflects a combination of several of all of these aims. The retributive elements is intended to show a public revulsion of the offence and to punish he offender for his wrong conduct. Deterrent sentences are aimed at deterring not only the actual offender from further offences but also potential offenders from breaking the Jaw. The importance of reformation of the offender is shown by growing emphasis laid upon it by much of modern legislation. However, the protection of society is often overriding consideration. In addition reparation is becoming an important objective in...
To continue reading
Request your trial