R v Cedric Simms

JurisdictionTurks and Caicos Islands
JudgeMr. Justice Davidson Kelvin Baptiste
Judgment Date27 February 2024
Docket NumberCR9 of 2023
CourtSupreme Court (Turks and Caicos)
Rex
and
Cedric Simms
Before:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Davidson Kelvin Baptiste (Ag)

CR9 of 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT

APPEARANCES:

Mrs. Sophia Sandy-Smith for the Crown.

Mrs. Lara Maroof for the Defendant.

SENTENCING JUDGMENT
1

Baptiste J: Cedric Simms (“the defendant”) was found guilty on 9 th January 2024, at a judge alone trial, of the offence of unlawfully and maliciously setting fire to a dwelling house with persons therein contrary to section 4 of the Malicious Injury to Property Ordinance, Chapter 3:11. A person found guilty of such an offence shall be liable to imprisonment for life.

2

The brief background facts are that the defendant and his wife, Mrs. Simms were estranged. Mrs. Simms had left the matrimonial home seven months before the fire was set, because of the abusive conduct and behaviour of the defendant. Having left the home, she took up residence with her sister, at her sister's home, in a small plywood house. On 12 th November 2022 at around 8 p.m., the defendant went to his wife's place of work, and along with his wife and her sister, proceeded to the home of his wife's sister. The defendant was infuriated because his wife refused to go home with him and threatened to buy gas and burn down the house. His wife had also refused his entreaties for sex.

3

The defendant sat outside the house until 11p.m then left. He returned later and repeated that he was going to buy gas and burn down the house. He accused his wife's sister of accommodating her in the house. The defendant was seen throwing rocks on the house about midnight. The defendant's wife sister retired, only to be awakened by Mrs. Simms indication that there was a fire. The fire was quickly extinguished by the neighbours. Mrs. Simms and her sister were not physically harmed nor did the house suffer substantial damage due to the quick response of the virtual complainants and neighbours.

4

At the sentencing hearing, learned counsel for the defendant, Mrs. Maroof, invited the court to utilize the United Kingdom Sentencing Guidelines in relation to arson for the offence in respect of which the defendant was found guilty, as the elements are essentially the same. In that regard, Mrs. Maroof posited that in considering the appropriate culpability level, the offence falls within Medium Culpability (B category). The evidence did not establish that there was a high degree of planning or premeditation or that an accelerant was used. Further, it did not entail a high risk of injury to persons or very serious damage to property. Mrs. Maroof accepted that the evidence established that there was some planning and certainly recklessness as to whether serious damage to property or injury to persons would be caused.

5

With respect to “harm”, Mrs. Maroof stated that the appropriate “Harm” level falls within Category 2 as there was no physical harm caused to anyone, no evidence of serious psychological harm and the damage caused, appeared to have been minimal.

6

Mrs. Maroof submitted that the appropriate starting point for the offence is 9 months imprisonment with a category range of 6 months to 1 year and a half. If the court determines that there is a high culpability A, then the appropriate starting point would be 2 years in custody and a category range of 2 to 4 years. In considering whether there should be an upward adjustment for aggravating features, Mrs. Maroof stated that the defendant's previous convictions are spent and are of a different nature to the current offence. The last conviction dated 3 rd November 2022 was for breach of an interim order in the Magistrates Court, with a suspended sentence.

7

The offence was committed within a domestic context. The defendant set fire to the property where his wife was residing when he was upset. Mrs. Maroof accepted this as an aggravating feature which would increase the sentence from the appropriate starting point. Mrs. Maroof does not submit that there any factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation.

8

Learned counsel for the Crown, Mrs. Sandy-Smith, referred to the classical principles of sentencing: retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation and submitted that the evidence borne out during the trial demonstrated that the defendant acted out of anger. He was upset that his wife refused him sexual intercourse and that her sister accommodated his wife at her home.

9

Mrs. Sandy-Smith pointed to the seriousness of the offence and invited the court to send a clear warning to the offender and potential offenders to act as a deterrent and to protect the community from an escalation of this class of offence. Mrs. Sandy-Smith pointed out that the action of the accused was deliberate; he had threatened to burn down the house before the fire was set. He said no one will see him.

10

Mrs. Sandy-Smith cited the following as aggravating factors:

  • a. The seriousness of the offence;

  • b. The deliberate and intentional act of the accused to set fire to the dwelling house;

  • c. The accused acted out of anger;

  • d. The lack of remorse;

  • e. Threats to burn down the house;

  • f. Intention to cause a high risk of damage to the house;

  • g. Intention to cause a high risk of injury to the victims;

  • h. The house is a wooden house;

  • i. The offence was committed within a domestic setting;

  • j. The offence was committed to exhibit control.

11

As regards mitigating factors, Mrs. Sandy-Smith recognised that no physical harm was caused; the entire structure was not destroyed; and a low value of damage was occasioned. Also that the defendant has to be credited for the time spent on remand for the offence.

12

In terms of victim impact, the Crown relies on the statement of the accused's wife submitted to the Crown on 15 th February 2024, that:

“I am always vigilant when I walk because I'm always in fear. Both me and my sister are stressed and the situation is affecting my children causing me and my children to live apart. Even though Cedric is in prison, I'm still afraid and always feel like someone is behind me.

13

Mrs. Sandy-Smith stated that there was no reported judgment for arson in this jurisdiction and in the absence of sentencing guidelines, the guidance is to be derived from the case law, as well as sentencing guidelines from other jurisdictions. Mrs. Sandy-Smith referred to the case of Desmond Baptiste v The Queen Criminal Appeal No 8 of 2003, 6 December 2004, Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, where Byron CJ applied the dicta of Lawton LJ in R v Sargeant (1974) 60 Cr. App R 74, at page 77 as to the principles of sentencing: retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation.

14

In applying these principles, Mrs. Sandy-Smith contended, with respect to retribution, that the defendant acted out of anger. He was upset with his wife for refusing his request for sexual intercourse and was angry that his wife's sister was accommodating her. The actions of the defendant were calculated to destroy anything and anyone who will keep his wife away from him. In the premises, Mrs. Sandy-Smith submitted that the manner and execution of the offence is one which “society through the courts, must show its abhorrence of particular types of crime, and the only way the courts can show this is by the sentence they pass.”

15

With respect to deterrence and prevention, Mrs. Sandy-Smith submitted that the offence is serious in nature, attracting a penalty of life imprisonment. In that regard, learned counsel invited the court to send a clear warning to the defendant and potential offenders to act as a deterrence to protect the community from an escalation of this class of offence. Mrs....

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT