Basil Bruce v R

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Brooks JA
• Judgment Date: 18 February 2014
• Neutral Citation: JM 2014 CA 23
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 1/2010
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Date: 18 February 2014

[2014] JMCA Crim 10

JAMAICA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT

Before:

The Hon Mr Justice Morrison JA

The Hon Mr Justice Brooks JA

The Hon Ms Justice Lawrence-Beswick JA (Ag)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 1/2010

Basil Bruce

and

R

Robert Fletcher and Kashaka Smith for the applicant

Ms Sanchia Burrell for the Crown

CRIMINAL LAW - Causing grievous bodily harm with intent - Leave to appeal sentence - Whether sentence was manifestly excessive

ORAL JUDGMENT

Brooks JA

1 On 10 December 2010, Mr Basil Bruce pleaded guilty in the circuit court held in the parish of Saint Elizabeth, to an indictment charging him with two counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. He was sentenced, six days later, to nine years imprisonment in respect of count 1 of the indictment and 12 years imprisonment in respect of count 2. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2 This is an application by Mr Bruce for permission to appeal against the sentence imposed by the learned sentencing judge. Mr Bruce was refused permission to appeal by a single judge of this court. Despite this refusal he has renewed his application before the court.

3 The facts that were outlined to the court in support of the convictions were that on 17 July 2009, the two complainants, Messrs Neville Rowe and Kevon Smalling were sitting together at a shopping arcade in Black River in the parish of Saint Elizabeth when Mr Bruce approached them. Mr Bruce had a bottle in his right hand at the time.

4 The men stated that when Mr Bruce was about 6 feet from them he ‘flashed’ the bottle at them. A liquid substance came from the bottle and splashed on them at various parts of their bodies, including their faces and upper bodies. Mr Rowe's eye is said to have been also affected. The men felt those areas beginning to burn and they had to receive medical treatment. This treatment involved skin grafts for Mr Smalling. The burns were chemical burns. It proved, based on what defence counsel said to the court during a plea in mitigation, that the substance that Mr Bruce had thrown was a liquid ‘pool cleaner’.

5 It was in respect of count 1 of the indictment, which involved the injury to Mr Rowe, that Mr Bruce was sentenced to nine years imprisonment. The sentence of 12 years imprisonment was in respect of count 2, which involved the injury to Mr Smalling.

6 Mr Bruce's complaint, which is contained in the single ground of appeal, is that the sentence is manifestly excessive. In arguing this ground, Mr Fletcher, on his behalf, brought to the attention of the court that there was a disparity between the sentences imposed on Mr Rowe and those passed on Mr Smalling. He argued that there was no obvious reason to explain what a member of our panel described as a lack of ‘symmetry’. In his written submissions Mr Fletcher said, ‘What is absent is any distinguishing feature between the injuries which ground each count and the sentences for each’.

7 In assessing this complaint, it is to be noted that in her sentencing of Mr Bruce, the learned sentencing judge indicated that her starting point was that of 18 years imprisonment at hard labour. She quite properly...