The State v Ronnie Leslie
| Jurisdiction | Dominica |
| Judge | Colin Williams J |
| Judgment Date | 12 March 2024 |
| Neutral Citation | DM 2024 HC 4 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO: DOMHCR: 2023/0017 |
| Court | High Court (Dominica) |
CASE NO: DOMHCR: 2023/0017
IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(CRIMINAL DIVISION)
Ms Sherma Dalrymple, DPP, along with Ms Dania Matthew and Ms Marie Louise Pierre-Louis, State Counsel, for the State
Mr Wayne Norde and Mr Bernard Pacquette for the Defendant
On Friday the 1 st of March 2024, Mr Ronnie Leslie was found to be guilty of the offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. It was a unanimous decision of a nine-member jury panel.
The ‘Particulars of Offence’ for which Mr Leslie was convicted stated that:
“[O]n the 12 th day of November, 2017, at Cabawie, St Joseph, in the Parish of St Joseph, in the Commonwealth of Dominica, in the District aforesaid did unlawfully and maliciously cause grievous bodily harm to Hendricks Felix Morancie with intent to do the said Hendricks Felix Morancie grievous bodily harm.”
Causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so is an offence “Contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act, Chapter 10:31 of the Laws of the Commonwealth of Dominica, Revised Edition 1990.”
A person who is guilty of contravening section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act is “liable to imprisonment for ten years.”
Although there were competing narratives as to precisely how the altercation began between Mr Leslie and the victim, Mr Morancie, on the morning of Sunday, the 12 th of November 2017, and as to precisely where the ultimate infliction of the injury took place, what is clear is that the jury was satisfied that the wound inflicted by Mr Leslie was not done by accident, neither was Mr Leslie acting in self defence.
The case for the State was that Mr Morancie left his home sometime after 6.00 am on the day of the incident to go to the beach. While he was passing the area of Mr Leslie's home, Mr Leslie started hurling abuses towards the complainant and Mr Morancie responded.
(Mr Leslie's narrative is that he was at home, repairing the fence that was damaged during the Hurricane when Mr Morancie came to the premises).
Mr Morancie said that he went to the beach and on his return, he saw Mr Leslie approaching. Mr Leslie had a cutlass in his possession. Mr Morancie said that Mr Leslie “jack me three times” and threated to plan him with the cutlass. Mr Morancie got away from Mr Leslie and pelted two bottles at Mr Leslie. One of the bottles connected with Mr Leslie. The complainant said he then ran, but was pursued by Mr Leslie who then chopped the complainant on his foot, in the area of the ankle.
Mr Morancie's timeline is not it sync with the State's witness, Mr Earl Christopher. He said he was in bed around 6.30 am. He heard noise outside and went on his porch. He saw the complainant and Mr Leslie nearby in an argument. He called out to them and went back inside to put on some clothes. When he went back outside he saw Mr Morancie on the beach, close to the road. Mr Morancie had an injury to his leg.
Mr Christopher transported the complainant to the Saint Joseph Health Center. From there Mr Morancie was taken to the then Princess Margaret Hospital. Dr Adrien Dechusay who saw the complainant at about 8.30 am the same day assessed the injury and considered that amputation of the right leg at the level of the ankle was necessary. Mr Morancie agreed to have the emergency surgery done.
Mr Morancie was discharged from the hospital after spending four to five days post-surgery. He is now fitted with a prosthetic leg.
At the Sentencing Hearing on Wednesday the 6 th of March 2024, Mr Leslie testified on oath saying:
“I am very sorry. Deep in my heart; very sorry. I would say sorry about that [to the virtual complainant, Mr Morancie] and hope he accept my apology.”
Mr Leslie said that he was employed for the past ten years and earns $1,000.00 a fortnight. He said that he was willing to compensate Mr Morancie.
The Learned Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, Ms Sherma Dalrymple, questioned Mr Leslie, about what sum he considered to be reasonable compensation to Mr Morancie. Mr Leslie initially indicated that he would like some advice as to a suitable figure, but when pressed by the DPP on the matter he said $40 to $50,000.00.
Three persons testified in mitigation on behalf of Mr Leslie. Those persons were his sister, Ms Ingrid Pierre, who is a police officer. Mr Leslie's common law companion, Ms Edith Augustus. And Mr Jason Jackman, a retired police officer who is Mr Leslie's cousin. They generally testified that Mr Leslie was peaceful, non-violent, soft-spoken, caring, kind, helpful and hard working.
Counsel, Mr Wayne Norde, urged that a non-custodial sentence be imposed. He submitted that there were exceptional circumstances in this case.
The State called Mr Morancie to testify regarding the impact that the offence has had on him.
According to Mr Morancie, prior to the incident, he did construction work. He used to earn $1,500.00 a fortnight. He does not work anymore. He has hospital bills going back to the incident in 2017 amounting to $7,000.00. He has a bill for a prosthetic leg costing $5,375.00 and he also has an outstanding bill for a doctor amounting to $1,183.00.
Mr Morancie said that since the incident, he is in a lot of pain. Bathing is a problem. Changing his clothes is a problem. There is a loss of independence; he has to be dependent on others to do things for him. He does not work and his five children assist in his maintenance.
Mr Morancie said that he considered that compensation of $100,000.00 to be reasonable. He was not interested in hearing any apology from Mr Leslie, saying “Why now? It's too late.”
Mr Morancie in response to Mr Norde stated that he is not working because he “cannot stand up.” He stated that since the amputation he is unable to keep his balance. Mr Morancie resisted the suggestion from counsel that he could indeed find gainful employment by doing something other than his former profession in construction.
Mr Norde urged that:
-
• Justice be tempered with mercy.
-
• A non-custodial sentence be imposed.
-
• Innovation be applied to sentencing
Mr Norde stated that “at first blush,” the nature of the offence and the extent of the injury suffered by the complainant may warrant a custodial sentence. He noted that there were Sentencing Guidelines for violence offence, but he felt that there were exceptional circumstances in this case to take the matter outside of the strictures of the Guidelines.
Counsel asked that consideration be given to reparations for the complainant. He said that there can be reasonable compensation. Mr Norde said that if Mr Leslie was sent to prison, justice will be absent. He advocated that a suspended sentence be imposed and there be an order for compensation with an appropriate default provision.
Mr Norde referred to the Criminal Justice (Reform) Act, Chapter 12.35 of the Laws of the Commonwealth of Dominica as support for his submission for imposing a suspended sentence.
Ms Dalrymple on behalf of the State stated that the suspended sentence in the Criminal Justice (Reform) Act would only apply in particular circumstances. The Learned DPP detailed how she viewed the different stages of the Sentencing Guidelines as they may be applied to the circumstances of this case.
The Criminal Justice (Reform) Act was entered into force on the 29 th of January 1981. Its stated purpose was to “provide for reform of sentencing powers of the Courts and for matters incidental thereto and connected therewith.”
The Act provides for such things as attendance at day training centres, community service orders, suspended sentences, probation orders, and generally measures that are associated with juvenile offenders. The Act however does not specifically state any such limitation regarding its application.
The only provision which suggests that the Act may be geared towards young persons is at section 3, where the side note states it deals with: “Other punishment in lieu of imprisonment in certain circumstances.” The section provides:
“…where a person who has attained the age of eighteen years but is under the age of twenty-three years is convicted in any Court for any offence, the Court, instead of sentencing that person to imprisonment, shall deal with him in any other manner prescribed by law.”
Mr Norde however relied on section 6 (1) of the Criminal Justice (Reform) Act. It provides:
“A Court which passes a sentence of imprisonment on any offender for a term of not more than three years for any offence, may order that the sentence shall not take effect unless, during a period specified in the order being not less than one year or more than three years from the date of the order (hereinafter referred to as the ‘operational period’), the offender commits in Dominica another offence punishable with imprisonment for a period exceeding six months (hereinafter… referred to as a ‘subsequent offence’) and thereafter a Court having power to do so orders under section 7 that the original sentence shall take effect.”
The term used in the section is “any offender.” It is without any limitation with regard to age.
Section 9 of the Criminal Justice (Reform) Act provides for a suspended sentence supervision order to be made. The Supervision Order places the offender under the supervision of a probation officer for a specified period, to observe applicable conditions. There are consequences for the offender if there are breaches of the Order.
The Part IX of the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, Chapter 12.01 of the Laws of the Commonwealth of Dominica, provides for the different kinds of punishment that may be imposed. It addresses things such as:
...To continue reading
Request your trial