R v Winston Murray [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Caribbean States
• Judge: Price Findlay, J.
• Judgment Date: 04 November 2013
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2013] ECSC J1104-2
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. GDAHCR2011/0005
• Court: Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
• Date: 04 November 2013

[2013] ECSC J1104-2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA

AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CLAIM NO. GDAHCR2011/0005

Between:

Regina

and

Winston Murray

JUDGMENT ON SENTENCING

Price Findlay, J.

1 The convicted man was indicted for the offence of murder of Keisha Romaine. The offence was committed between the 2^nd and 3^rd days in June 2010 at Paraclete in the parish of St. Andrew. The accused was found guilty by a jury on the 8^th day of July, 2013. The Court ordered a Social Inquiry Report and a Psychiatric Assessment Report on the convicted man, and a date was fixed for sentencing.

FACTS

2 The convicted man lived in Paraclete, as did the deceased. On the night of 2^nd June, 2010, or in the early hours of the morning of the 3^rd June, 2010, the deceased was seen walking along the Paraclete Road going towards Paraclete. She was being followed by the convicted man. The next time the deceased was seen, she was lying under a lime tree, covered by bluggoe leaves on the property belonging to Cletus Godfrey. She had been manually strangled and there were several lacerations all over her body.

3 The body of the deceased was examined by Dr. Keith Johnson at the scene. He found numerous injuries to the deceased. These injuries were as follows:-

• (1) Laceration on the right forearm approximately 2 inches long by 2 inches deep;

• (2) Laceration on the right arm approximately 1.5 inches long by 1.5 inches deep;

• (3) Laceration on the right arm approximately 1 inch long by 1 inch deep;

• (4) Laceration on the right side of the forehead approximately 0.5 inch long;

• (5) Multiple abrasions on other areas of the forehead;

• (6) Superficial laceration of the right breast;

• (7) Two abrasions on the lower aspect of the right breast;

• (8) Superficial laceration to the right upper back approximately 2 inches long;

• (9) Puncture wound on the left index finger approximately 0.5 inch wide;

• (10) Multiple abrasions on the lips of the vagina with the internal surface of the vagina bruised and swollen.

4 The Court had the benefit of a social inquiry report on the convicted man and a report and oral testimony from psychiatrist Dr. Melba Ramirez Romaguera.

5 In the Social Inquiry Report, the officer found that the convicted man was inarticulate and below average intelligence. The convict presented accounts and stories of situations which appeared to be disjointed and farfetched. He expressed no remorse and insinuated that he had been framed by the police.

6 Inquiries in the Mt. Horne community where the convict lived and where the incident took place revealed that the community was guarded towards the convict but he was not known as a violent person. He attended church regularly and participated in church related activities.

7 Mr. Jude Bernard, an elder of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, described the convict as an individual keen on improving his life and putting his difficult upbringing behind him, and living a life devoted to God.

8 The convict attended Primary School but did not attain the Common Entrance standard but he could not recall when he left school. After leaving school he worked land with his parents, worked as a labourer, worked at a sugar factory and thereafter in the security field.

9 The convict spent three (3) weeks at the Mt. Gay Hospital in 2009, but says he was never given a formal diagnosis but the report produced to the Court states that he was diagnosed as suffering from a psychotic illness.

10 The social inquiry report stated that it was difficult to present a coherent risk assessment for the convicted man as they were unable to interview persons of significance to him. His immediate family refused to take part in the Social Inquiry process, and his estranged wife could not be located.

11 There was no indication as to whether he was at risk to be a repeat offender, as this risk assessment could only be presented when a detailed psychiatric report was tendered.

12 Dr. Ramirez Romaguera testified and read her report into the record. She was extensively cross-examined by Counsel for the accused man. She had assessed the convict on 19^th July. 2013.

13 She stated that the convicted man was initially hostile but once he was persuaded to co-operate he did so.

14 He refused to speak about the incident but he denied killing anyone. He admitted that he knew the deceased and had a close relationship with her parents.

15 She opined that: "During the interview he displayed personality traits that might be considered paranoid; he displayed guarded or defensive behaviour, and a tendency to react to minor occurrences with anger."

16 She found him to be coherent and logical but that his mood was irritable. He denied having hallucinations or delusions. She concluded that the convict presented no features of any psychotic illness.

17 She was cross-examined by Counsel as to the test that she utilised to assess the convicted man. She indicated that she did not do a psychometric test nor did she do an intelligence test; she conducted a clinical interview with him. She was assisted by two other doctors.

18 She testified that part of a psychiatric evaluation would be an assessment of the patient's intellectual level.

19 She testified that she assessed the clinical symptoms of the convict and at the time of the interview he showed no symptoms.

20 She knew that the convict was a patient at Mt. Gay in 2009 and she knew that he had been diagnosed at that time with acute psychosis. She said that a person can make a full recovery and there be no recurrence of psychotic problems. She also stated that there could be a recurrence if the patient is faced with disturbing events or uses drugs. She denied that her report was biased. She repeated that during the testing the convict exhibited no problems. She expressed no opinion as to the probability of the convicted man re-offending.

21 The deceased was 29 years old and the mother of two infant children at the time of her death. She resided at Mt. Horne, and according to her sister, Caroline Romaine, she was a peace loving individual who got on well with all in her community. She was described as a loving and devoted mother, sister and aunt. Her family took her death very hard, especially her parents and children. The burden of her death was described as 'traumatic", and the family was still trying to cope with the loss.

22 The convicted man did not testify nor did he call any witnesses on his behalf. The aggravating factors include:

• (a) The loss of a life of young mother of two small children;

• (b) The manner in which she was killed;

• (c) That he manually strangled and then mutilated the body of the deceased;

• (d) That the attack was totally unprovoked.

23 The mitigating factors were stated by Mr. Clouden as follows:

• (i) No evidence that a knife was used in the attack that caused the death of the deceased;

• (ii) The character and record of the convict;

• (iii) What informed the conduct of the convict.

24 This Court has carefully considered all of the evidence adduced at the sentencing hearing as well as the submissions of Counsel.

THE LAW

25 A convenient starting point would be to examine the classical principles of sentencing. The classical principles of sentencing, namely retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation were laid down by Lawson LJ in the celebrated case ofR v James Henry Sargeant [1974] 60 Cr....